Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

which company is right, which is wrong?

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

  • MMaddi
    replied
    Originally posted by JerryS. View Post
    for now I will say neither, in an attempt to not influence the validity of the data.
    Boudicca1's point is a valid one. You ask us which company is right. How can we judge that if you don't give us some idea of your known ancestry to compare with what the two companies have given you in their ethnic/geographic ancestry estimate?

    Leave a comment:


  • JerryS.
    replied
    Originally posted by Boudicca1 View Post
    No, I'm saying that sometimes it's helpful for other people to know your ancestry to give you advice based on your original question. I was just trying to help you reach the answer to your question. It's your choice how you pursue finding answers to your results.
    for now I will say neither, in an attempt to not influence the validity of the data.

    Leave a comment:


  • John McCoy
    replied
    At the moment, and for the foreseeable future, there doesn't seem to be a rigorous way to validate admixture results. In other words, there doesn't seem to be an external standard by which we could determine which vendor's ethnic origins results are most accurate. Ancestry has reported in a general way on measures they took to validate their methodology, I don't know if any of the other vendors or programmers have released comparable information. But the available tests deal with consistency (i.e., how often do children show ethnic origins that are inconsistent with those of their parents?), which, while an essential attribute of a sound algorithm, is not the same thing as accuracy.

    Leave a comment:


  • Boudicca1
    replied
    Originally posted by JerryS. View Post
    I don't understand. are you saying I should keep testing until I see what I like, instead of simply getting accurate data?
    No, I'm saying that sometimes it's helpful for other people to know your ancestry to give you advice based on your original question. I was just trying to help you reach the answer to your question. It's your choice how you pursue finding answers to your results.
    Last edited by Boudicca1; 4 June 2017, 09:38 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • JerryS.
    replied
    Originally posted by Boudicca1 View Post
    Which one most closely matches your known ancestry?
    I don't understand. are you saying I should keep testing until I see what I like, instead of simply getting accurate data?

    Leave a comment:


  • Boudicca1
    replied
    Originally posted by JerryS. View Post
    the same sample read by two different companies, yielded two different results, from the same sample mind you. which one is right, which one is wrong?

    Ancestry:
    63% Great Britain
    5% Scandinavian

    FTDNA:
    British Isles 4%
    Scandinavia 38%
    Which one most closely matches your known ancestry?

    Leave a comment:


  • JerryS.
    replied
    anyone have a viable explanation for the same data being read/interpreted considerably different ways?

    Leave a comment:


  • JerryS.
    replied
    Originally posted by keigh View Post
    The DNA that you had tested was the same, but the tests run on that DNA were different. They use different lab samples and computer programs to evaluate and determine the ethnic estimates.

    My Ancestry test gives me as 100% European with 57% Great Britain, Iberian Pennisula 12%, Scandinavia 11%, Ireland 10%, Finland and Northwest Russia 7% and a 3% as trace amount of West European. FTDNA gives me as 99% European with a breakdown of British Isles--0%, East Europe--5%, Finland < 1%,Scandinavia--32%, Southeast Europe--0%
    Iberia--0%, West and Central Europe--62%

    Basically what I know from the tests is that I'm European, and perhaps with Ancestry I know where my ancestors came from, and with FTDNA I know where my ancestors' ancestors came from.

    Take the tests with a grain of salt if you have high blood pressure, and a block of salt if you BP's OK.

    You might want to download your DNA over at GEDmatch and play around with their ethnicity programs. You may end up even more confused by the result.
    using different population groups can reasonably explain why one would test as 20% ABC with one company and 17% ABC with another, but looking just at your results, one company clearly uses suspect calculating data.

    Leave a comment:


  • keigh
    replied
    The DNA that you had tested was the same, but the tests run on that DNA were different. They use different lab samples and computer programs to evaluate and determine the ethnic estimates.

    My Ancestry test gives me as 100% European with 57% Great Britain, Iberian Pennisula 12%, Scandinavia 11%, Ireland 10%, Finland and Northwest Russia 7% and a 3% as trace amount of West European. FTDNA gives me as 99% European with a breakdown of British Isles--0%, East Europe--5%, Finland < 1%,Scandinavia--32%, Southeast Europe--0%
    Iberia--0%, West and Central Europe--62%

    Basically what I know from the tests is that I'm European, and perhaps with Ancestry I know where my ancestors came from, and with FTDNA I know where my ancestors' ancestors came from.

    Take the tests with a grain of salt if you have high blood pressure, and a block of salt if you BP's OK.

    You might want to download your DNA over at GEDmatch and play around with their ethnicity programs. You may end up even more confused by the result.
    Last edited by keigh; 2 June 2017, 07:12 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • JerryS.
    replied
    Originally posted by NCroots View Post
    I believe in essence they are saying the same thing. The British Isles were settled by the Vikings, so it makes sense that Scandinavian would show up. The fact that one shows more Scandinavian and less Great Britain, and vice versa is not really important. It would be important if it was say, Scandinavia and Greek, etc. There is a numerical disparity between the two companies in total, though.
    even if we accept that Scandinavian and British Isles are the same, why such a large discrepancy in the total, 68% vs. 42%?

    Leave a comment:


  • NCroots
    replied
    I believe in essence they are saying the same thing. The British Isles were settled by the Vikings, so it makes sense that Scandinavian would show up. The fact that one shows more Scandinavian and less Great Britain, and vice versa is not really important. It would be important if it was say, Scandinavia and Greek, etc. There is a numerical disparity between the two companies in total, though.

    Leave a comment:


  • JerryS.
    started a topic which company is right, which is wrong?

    which company is right, which is wrong?

    the same sample read by two different companies, yielded two different results, from the same sample mind you. which one is right, which one is wrong?

    Ancestry:
    63% Great Britain
    5% Scandinavian

    FTDNA:
    British Isles 4%
    Scandinavia 38%
Working...
X