Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FTDNA Inaccuracy?

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

  • hachaliah
    replied
    Originally posted by Cats View Post
    Sorenson can take a very longtime to give you your results. However, if you write and ask them about your results I have found them to be very responsive. You can also sign into Genetree and search for your results.
    Alright, I put my information into Genetree as well.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ann Turner
    replied
    Originally posted by hachaliah View Post
    My surname is Miller. 97 instances.
    If you want to be sure, you can look at the pedigrees for each of the Millers and see if yours is listed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cats
    replied
    2 years not uncommon

    Sorenson can take a very longtime to give you your results. However, if you write and ask them about your results I have found them to be very responsive. You can also sign into Genetree and search for your results.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jim Barrett
    replied
    I believe both companies have a very high rate of accuracy.

    Have you signed up with SMGF to receive an e-mail when they load additional records to their database? Have you registered so you can enter your data into their search and save the data so you can search again later without having to load your data again?

    When you search be sure to select the search by results, and not by surname. I believe you can select something like 80% match. To find your results in the match list look for Miller with the places of birth you provided in the ancestor information you send them starting with the first person who died before 1900.

    Also SMGF is VERY S-L-O-W. It has only been two years since you sent your sample to them. They have many paying customers in line before you.

    If you want help searching send me an e-mail to [email protected] with your FTDNA results or where I can find your results and a copy of the ancestor information you sent them. The FTDNA results should be as they are currently displayed on your "myFTDNA" website.

    Leave a comment:


  • hachaliah
    replied
    I guess I said FTDNA inaccuracy because this is the FTDNA board... I don't know.
    I'm still curious.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jim Barrett
    replied
    Sorenson Inaccuracy?

    Originally posted by hachaliah View Post
    This leads me to believe there is a discrepancy between the results Sorensen found and the results I was given by FTDNA. Any thoughts?
    I wonder why you didn't call this Sorenson Inaccuracy. I tested with both and matched, except for the results that required modification.

    Leave a comment:


  • FredSpringer
    replied
    I had tested with Sorenson in 2002, My FTDNA tests match my Sorenson tests exactly. I had testing done at EthnoAncestry for SNPs which were not yet available at FTDNA. After FTDNA made the tests available, the results matched EthnoAncestry exactly. As for me, I must say FTDNA Accuracy is high.

    Leave a comment:


  • cacio
    replied
    I cannot distinguish the various types of Q, but, as Maddi was saying, Q is found in many places. There is Native American Q1a3a, then there are other types of Q1 both in Asia and in Europe. In Europe it is found both in the North (Scandinavia, UK) and in the East (Ashkenazi Jews - I'm not sure if also in non-Jewish East Europeans). It is also found in Turkey and the Levant, and thus a bit in the Mediterranean (for instance, there is some in southern Italy). So plenty of possibilities here.

    cacio

    Leave a comment:


  • hachaliah
    replied
    Here's a page where you can see what paternal surnames are in their yDNA database - http://www.smgf.org/ychromosome/surnames.jspx If your name is not a common one and can't be found in the listing of surnames, then it's probably the case that your results aren't there yet.

    Q is certainly not a common European ancestry haplogroup, but does occur. If you tell us what your paternal line ethnic ancestry is, someone here can speak to how likely or unlikely it is that FTDNA got your results right. Also, the question is whether Q is their prediction or the result of a SNP test. Sometimes an R1b1b2 with unusual results may look like a Q, if FTDNA is just predicting.
    My surname is Miller. 97 instances. That's no help.
    My paternal line is likely German, although I can only trace English Canadian ancestry through the early 1700's. The Q is the result of an SNP test - actually I am confirmed Q1. So what gives?

    Leave a comment:


  • MMaddi
    replied
    If your results have shown up in SMGF's public database, then it certainly seems that there is a discrepancy. However, are you sure that your results are now in SMGF's database? I know that two years since your submission is a long time, but the normal wait for results to show up in the database is a year or a year and a half.

    It is the case that SMGF is no longer accepting new samples, except for certain ethnic groups, and their updating of the database has slowed down to a crawl. Perhaps your results are not in the database yet and may not appear there, unless it's one of the ethnic groups they need more of.

    Here's a page where you can see what paternal surnames are in their yDNA database - http://www.smgf.org/ychromosome/surnames.jspx If your name is not a common one and can't be found in the listing of surnames, then it's probably the case that your results aren't there yet.

    Q is certainly not a common European ancestry haplogroup, but does occur. If you tell us what your paternal line ethnic ancestry is, someone here can speak to how likely or unlikely it is that FTDNA got your results right. Also, the question is whether Q is their prediction or the result of a SNP test. Sometimes an R1b1b2 with unusual results may look like a Q, if FTDNA is just predicting.

    Leave a comment:


  • hachaliah
    started a topic FTDNA Inaccuracy?

    FTDNA 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 2008 and received confirmation of receipt of the sample on the 20th of March, 2008. 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 discrepancy between the results Sorensen found and the results I was given by FTDNA. Any thoughts?
Working...
X