Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Big time inaccuracy?

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

  • Big time inaccuracy?

    Here's a question for you guys... I had my 37 marker results come back in August of 2006 with a haplogroup Q... A bit different than what I had expected.
    On top of that, I donated a sample to the Sorensen Database in March of last year. Part of me did it for the "good cause" and the other part of me did it as a means to double check my results from FTDNA. Fast forward to today, when I decided to check the SMGF site to see if I could find any hint of my results there based on the values I received from FTDNA. Not a thing! I did a search for seven markers (SMGF minimum) with 70% matches... Surely that'd get me close to wherever my results were. Nope, nothing there either.

    This leads me to believe there is a gross discrepancy between the results Sorensen found and the results I was given by FTDNA. Any thoughts?

  • #2
    You may not realize this, but be prepared to wait at least a year and up to two years for your results to appear in their database. Hey, it's free, but you get what you pay for.

    When did you send your DNA sample to SMGF? If you sent in your sample less than a year ago, then it has not been tested and placed in the database yet.

    Another factor may be the conversion needed for some markers between the FTDNA value and the SMGF value. When you searched for your results at SMGF, did you use the pulldown menu to specify that you were entering values as FDTNA gives them?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by hachaliah View Post
      Here's a question for you guys... I had my 37 marker results come back in August of 2006 with a haplogroup Q... A bit different than what I had expected.
      On top of that, I donated a sample to the Sorensen Database in March of last year. Part of me did it for the "good cause" and the other part of me did it as a means to double check my results from FTDNA. Fast forward to today, when I decided to check the SMGF site to see if I could find any hint of my results there based on the values I received from FTDNA. Not a thing! I did a search for seven markers (SMGF minimum) with 70% matches... Surely that'd get me close to wherever my results were. Nope, nothing there either.

      This leads me to believe there is a gross discrepancy between the results Sorensen found and the results I was given by FTDNA. Any thoughts?
      I'm not clear on how you were using SMGF. Did you find your own record there by seaching for your surname and finding your pedigree? Or were you just looking to see if there were records with your marker values, like you would do at YSearch or YHRD?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Ann Turner View Post
        I'm not clear on how you were using SMGF. Did you find your own record there by seaching for your surname and finding your pedigree? Or were you just looking to see if there were records with your marker values, like you would do at YSearch or YHRD?
        It sounds like he did a general search, with specifying a surname. His surname is Miller, which is very common. It's probably just as easy to use his marker values, since his haplogroup (Q) is not a very common one.

        Comment


        • #5
          I searched by surname and by marker match, neither of which came up with anything. I received my confirmation email from SMGF on March 20, 2008 that they had received my sample. Is it too soon?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by hachaliah View Post
            I searched by surname and by marker match, neither of which came up with anything. I received my confirmation email from SMGF on March 20, 2008 that they had received my sample. Is it too soon?
            Sounds like it's too soon. They just had a new update, so they probably won't have another update until the summer or fall. Check back then and you might be there. Or you might not even be there until 2010. The minimum wait is a year after they receive your sample, but some people wait close to two years.

            Comment


            • #7
              Big Time Inaccuracy - On Your Part

              Originally posted by hachaliah View Post
              I searched by surname and by marker match, neither of which came up with anything. I received my confirmation email from SMGF on March 20, 2008 that they had received my sample. Is it too soon?
              Two years and ten months after SMGF received my sample they posted my mtDNA to their public database. Yes, they did report my Y-DNA before that. I have a friend who sent his sample to them in Nov. 2006 and still doesn't have all of his Y-DNA.

              Your thread title suggest that you believe that FTDNA had "Big Time Inaccuracy" but I suggest that the inaccuracy was on your part. To bad you can't correct the title.

              I assume you do know that your Haplogroup, either predicted or SNP tested, is providing information about the origin of your paternal line 1,000's of years ago. Do you really thing you know where your paternal line was that long ago?

              SMGF appears to be adding new records to their public database every two to four months. Sit back and relax. You may have some of your free results by the end of 2009. If you didn't sign up to be notified when they update their database I suggest you do so. It will save a lot of search time. When they notify you of an update you do a search then you wait for the next notification.

              After adjusting my results for the differences in reporting I had a good match between SMGF and FTDNA results.

              Comment


              • #8
                As Accurate As It Gets

                I gave a DNA sample to SMGF in 2002 and also tested in 2007 with FTDNA. My FTDNA Y-DNA matched SMGF exactly, but there were no SMGF MTDNA results to compare with my FTDNA MTDNA results. Finally, a couple of weeks ago SMGF listed my MTDNA from 2002. My SMGF MTDNA results also matched FTDNA results exactly.

                Comment

                Working...
                X