ancestry.com being acquired

[tomcat]

... That leaves FTDNA to specialize in genetic anthropology and/or genealogy. The first I don't think is big enough to sustain a healthy business ...

Genetic anthropology worked out well for The Genographic Project - half a million participants for Geno 1.0. FTDNA doesn't have the cache of National Geographic but they do have an ongoing relationship.

[djknox]

With all of the dissing of 23andMe in some quarters, a counter view is in order:

23andMe Total Matches: 641
23andMe Communicating: 161

FT-DNA Family Finder Total Matches: 77
FT-DNA Family Finder Communicating: 0

FT-DNA Full Mitochondrial Sequence Matches: 1 (HVR1)
FT-DNA Full Mitochondrial Sequence Communicating: 0
23andMe Maternal Haplogroup Matches: 2
23andMe Maternal Haplogroup Communicating: 2

FT-DNA Y-DNA 111-Marker Matches: 1
FT-DNA Y-DNA 67-Marker Matches: 6
FT-DNA Y-DNA 37-Marker Matches: 3
FT-DNA Y-DNA 25-Marker Matches: 15
FT-DNA Y-DNA 12-Marker Matches: 317
FT-DNA Y-DNA Communicating: 1 (67-Markers)

23andMe Paternal Haplogroup Matches: 7
23andMe Paternal Haplogroup Communicating: 7

The bottomline is that roughly twice as many 23andMe matches communicate with me than FT-DNA customers have relevant matches with me. This is not a knock on FT-DNA. To the contrary, I just sent off my Geno 2.0 sample this morning. This is to say that biomedical research focus notwithstanding, 23andMe does a fantastic job in DNA genealogy.

I find your situation very interesting... why such a bad success rate at FTDNA? If people are going to make the effort to do these tests, they must be interested in genealogy. Why then are so few engaging? I do not have a 23&me profile... but I know several serious genealogists who tested there and now ignore contact requests because they think its a waste of time - meaning they feel that much of the matching is erroneous or at least out of their validation reach.

[djknox]

Genetic anthropology worked out well for The Genographic Project - half a million participants for Geno 1.0. FTDNA doesn't have the cache of National Geographic but they do have an ongoing relationship.

I don't dispute that... but I doubt it has staying power over the long run.... but one never knows I suppose...

[MFWare]

I find your situation very interesting... why such a bad success rate at FTDNA? If people are going to make the effort to do these tests, they must be interested in genealogy. Why then are so few engaging? I do not have a 23&me profile... but I know several serious genealogists who tested there and now ignore contact requests because they think its a waste of time - meaning they feel that much of the matching is erroneous or at least out of their validation reach.

"Bad" is a pejorative that simply does not apply in my case. You are a frequent poster on this forum. Take the time to read the posts of others. You will find posts by FT-DNA customers who have waited years for any match at all. Would I like more matches? Certainly. Would I like for my matches to be more closely related? Of course, I would.

I have matches at 23&Me who do not share genomes that are closer than any at FT-DNA. Some are so close that I ought to know them already even if I do not. These matches are closer than any of my FT-DNA matches. However, I have 161 matches there who have shared genomes. From each of my matches, I learn something. Among the things that I have learned is that some of my assumptions about my family were wrong. So I accentuate the positive.

I am African American with substantial European heritage. I have many European matches on 23&Me, FT-DNA, and Ancestry. However, it appears that FT-DNA has substantially less appeal to African Americans than does 23&Me. Fewer people who test means fewer matches for those who do.

Ironically, mitosearch.org has about six matches to my mtDNA. My FT-DNA match is one of them.

[djknox]

My first sentence miscommunicated my intent. I wasn't commenting on the lack of of matches... I was commenting on the lack of interest of potential matches corresponding with you at familytreedna. Why are so few interested in communicating (0 out of 77)? (if you had taken the time to read the remaining sentences of my post I think the jist would have been ascertained...)

And I do read the posts of others... ESPECIALLY if I intend to respond to them. You should consider the same.

The issue raised is why do so few at ftdna actually make the effort to correspond with you? Are they disinterested or do they somehow know that the matches are not valid? What value is there in FF testing if you're not generally interested in the potential relative connections? I guess if I am to take on the persona reflected upon my by others at this forum, I would have to surmise that people think it's a waste of time... but that would be unfairly extrapolating my own experience... so I rather hold optimism that there's another reason? Maybe everyone has their dna so well painted that all 77 just know you're not related? But in that case, I suppose the matching tool ain't worth much then is it?

So which could it be? 77 matching people all knowing that the results are garbage... or 77 people not giving a rat's arse to make contact with you as a potential cousin? And if the latter... why?

[T E Peterman]

Another thing to remember is that with Family Finder, many experienced genealogists are testing an ever broader pool of cousins to sort out their own lines. I've done this.

Timothy Peterman

[djknox]

Another thing to remember is that with Family Finder, many experienced genealogists are testing an ever broader pool of cousins to sort out their own lines. I've done this.

Timothy Peterman

Agreed Timothy... I am also investigating using these tests for that purpose... but to ignore possible connections to others... even if it only benefits that person and not oneself... seems selfish doesn't it? And surely not all 77 matches fall in this category? I try to respond to every contact made to me... and on several different websites too. I help researchers the best I can... I don't get why researchers would ignore contacts. Having said that, I do know some serious researchers who have given up on their dna sites because it doesn't pay off... which was actually the impetus for me to spend some money to see what I can learn about dna testing for ancestry purposes.