Phantom yDNA match?

[dwight]

Probably just impatience on my part.
I got this email from FTDNA this afternoon: "A Y-DNA12 match has been found between kit N90103, Dwight Randolph Holmes, and another person(s) in the Family Tree DNA database."

But nothing new is showing up in my yDNA match page. I suppose it's just a time lag, but I've never had a new match since my initial 12 marker results came in. Patience is hard to come by!

[Frederator]

More than likely there is a simple time lag between the sending of that email and the refreshing of the database. You will likely notice the new match tomorrow morning.

But of course, mistakes do get made, and maybe the email was sent to you in error.

I have kind of an off-topic but amusing true story about an email I received in error--from the state department of a small west European country. I'd visited there for like 2 weeks a couple of years before that, but I'm hardly a diplomat or anything so I couldn't understand why I'd receive or be the subject of any of their communications.

And the text of the email didn't clear anything up either--it was just some barely coherent fragmentary excerpt discussing the academic performance of an unnamed primary school student. Obviously someone's hammy fingers flubbed up big time there.

But sometimes, when I feel an inclination towards fantasy, I imagine it was a secret code that fate sent my way: "Help. Our country's state department is manned by incompetent buffoons."

Stupid, but a true story nonetheless.

[JOlson]

After you log in, click on "My FTDNA Home" in upper right corner"

Click on "user preferences" near top of left column.

Scroll down near the bottom and look for "When displaying matches only show..."

Make sure "12 markers" is checked.

[dwight]

Thanks, John. Yeah that setting is ok - my three original 12/12 matches have been visible all along.

After you log in, click on "My FTDNA Home" in upper right corner"

Click on "user preferences" near top of left column.

Scroll down near the bottom and look for "When displaying matches only show..."

Make sure "12 markers" is checked.

[nolnacsj]

Thanks, John. Yeah that setting is ok - my three original 12/12 matches have been visible all along.

Dwight, it has been well over a year since I had my mtDNA FMS test done, and I have the same matches that I initially received, and not one single new one since. I have never understood this as I would think that I would at least have a few new HVR1 matches....

Judy

[Frederator]

Dwight, it has been well over a year since I had my mtDNA FMS test done, and I have the same matches that I initially received, and not one single new one since. I have never understood this as I would think that I would at least have a few new HVR1 matches....

Judy

Judy,

Sorry to but in. Feel free to disregard this response, as I clearly understand that you were addressing Dwight and not myself.

However, I have to say that I totally feel for you. I did the Y-67 thing about six (6) years ago and immediately received at that time only one "potentially" statistically significant match. (It's GD 2 at 25; "matches" at this low a resolution, especially for a R1b1b2 guy, are generally regarded as worthless). Not a d*mned thing since then.

And to cap off the fun, this fellow is completely un-identifiable in any respect. No contact information--the only reason I am aware of the "match" is because he shows up on the MDKA geographic distribution page. He's not on the contact page at all--and FTDNA understandably refuses to answer any questions about that person or his name.

Occassionally I get a little angry about this because it's hard to see this as anything other than a waste of money. The geographic distribution of my "near-matches" (i.e., GD 3+ at 25+) isn't anything special--a fairly wide swathe of the north of Ireland and south of Scotland. Pretty much what I expected, adding no new information whatsoever.

On the otherhand, I did understand going into this that there was a statistical chance of complete failure. I knew I was taking my chances. I guess I just kind of hoped that six additional years would have helped the odds a bit. But nope.

[Yaffa]

Judy,

Sorry to but in. Feel free to disregard this response, as I clearly understand that you were addressing Dwight and not myself.

However, I have to say that I totally feel for you. I did the Y-67 thing about six (6) years ago and immediately received at that time only one "potentially" statistically significant match. (It's GD 2 at 25; "matches" at this low a resolution, especially for a R1b1b2 guy, are generally regarded as worthless). Not a d*mned thing since then.

And to cap off the fun, this fellow is completely un-identifiable in any respect. No contact information--the only reason I am aware of the "match" is because he shows up on the MDKA geographic distribution page. He's not on the contact page at all--and FTDNA understandably refuses to answer any questions about that person or his name.

Occassionally I get a little angry about this because it's hard to see this as anything other than a waste of money. The geographic distribution of my "near-matches" (i.e., GD 3+ at 25+) isn't anything special--a fairly wide swathe of the north of Ireland and south of Scotland. Pretty much what I expected, adding no new information whatsoever.

On the otherhand, I did understand going into this that there was a statistical chance of complete failure. I knew I was taking my chances. I guess I just kind of hoped that six additional years would have helped the odds a bit. But nope.

Does your match have a name with no contact info? My Uncle has one match like that. The persons name is listed with no email. I have not asked FTDNA to contact this match. FTDNA wont do a 3rd party contact for you without telling you who the person is?

[Frederator]

Does your match have a name with no contact info? My Uncle has one match like that. The persons name is listed with no email.

Nope. Not even a name. I'm only aware of the existence of the "match" because of the page listing geographic origins of MDKA.

FTDNA won't tell me anything at all about this person--which I guess is only right, as the person must sign a form agreeing to release the data in order for it to be displayed.

So basically all I know is that there is a potentially statistically signficant match within FTDNA's database. Nothing more than that.

[Yaffa]

Nope. Not even a name. I'm only aware of the existence of the "match" because of the page listing geographic origins of MDKA.

FTDNA won't tell me anything at all about this person--which I guess is only right, as the person must sign a form agreeing to release the data in order for it to be displayed.

So basically all I know is that there is a potentially statistically signficant match within FTDNA's database. Nothing more than that.

That stinks you think they would at least do a 3rd party contact and let that person decide to give you info. Being that they are anonymous do they get notice they have matches? They might not even know they match you???

[Frederator]

That stinks you think they would at least do a 3rd party contact and let that person decide to give you info. Being that they are anonymous do they get notice they have matches? They might not even know they match you???

Six years after exhausting the only option open to discover this person's identity, you're inclined to stop torturing yourself. But there is one thought that has crossed my mind recently: The owner of this account may be dead.

A few months back, through paper trail research, I re-connected to a cousin whose father (my uncle) was separated from our family through tragic, complicated circumstances I won't recount here. I'll just say that the only reason I was able to connect to this cousin was because I noticed some suspicious details in his father's (my uncle's) obituary.

It's just possible that this account was opened by my now-deceased uncle and that he's not able to respond for very obvious reasons.

But I guess I'll never know that for a fact, so I should probably stop torturing myself by thinking about it.

[aeduna]

S

But I guess I'll never know that for a fact, so I should probably stop torturing myself by thinking about it.

Have you tried putting info in the public dbs like ysearch and all? If they've also done that, they might show up there...

I feel your pain. I got nothin' matchwise and bizarre set of markers for the haplogroup I am in. A friend claims it is because I am part reptoid.

[Frederator]

Have you tried putting info in the public dbs like ysearch and all? If they've also done that, they might show up there...

I feel your pain. I got nothin' matchwise and bizarre set of markers for the haplogroup I am in. A friend claims it is because I am part reptoid.

LOL.

Thanks, but I waste at least 20 min. each week for the last 6 years doing that. No dice.

Best of luck to you as well, though.

[Brunetmj]

I got nothin' matchwise and bizarre set of markers for the haplogroup I am in.

I have no matches either so have been following this thread.
Since you have odd markers have you considered being retested at a different site to see if it is a valid first test? Just a thought

[aeduna]

I have no matches either so have been following this thread.
Since you have odd markers have you considered being retested at a different site to see if it is a valid first test? Just a thought

They're not so odd as to be invalid - they just hit the extremes of normal for that haplogroup in a number of different places. (I ended up not having a predicted haplogroup from the initial marker test, and the backbone guarantee kicked in). Skimming some of the info about G2a3b1 that's out there suggests that its an area in flux, with a lot of new information coming up. Its probably just that I am an outlier, or that the classification isn't quite true to life yet.

That being said, if things keep being weird over time, then its a possibility - a little limited by available funds and all, but yeah, I might. I'd like to investigate outside the brickwalled patrilineal line as well, that might take priority in the short term.

[Yaffa]

Six years after exhausting the only option open to discover this person's identity, you're inclined to stop torturing yourself. But there is one thought that has crossed my mind recently: The owner of this account may be dead.

A few months back, through paper trail research, I re-connected to a cousin whose father (my uncle) was separated from our family through tragic, complicated circumstances I won't recount here. I'll just say that the only reason I was able to connect to this cousin was because I noticed some suspicious details in his father's (my uncle's) obituary.

It's just possible that this account was opened by my now-deceased uncle and that he's not able to respond for very obvious reasons.

But I guess I'll never know that for a fact, so I should probably stop torturing myself by thinking about it.

I know how you feel, my Uncle who has the unk contact, our Y DNA does not match surname so I know all about the torture. Just waiting on that good 67 marker match and hope its out there somewhere outside our direct lines. The Oops happened in the early 1800's or before which makes it harder to prove.