Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Geno 2.0 Update & Y-2014 Tree

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

  • #16
    Sorry, I thought that was based on FG but it is based on Geno 2.0.

    Comment


    • #17
      In todays fast paced tech savvy world, I don't think it is an unreasonale request that we see the Haplo tree being updated at least 1 time a year.

      Making tech savvy DNA participant wait for the acadmic community to get their research published every 2 or 3 years only frustrates the DNA customers who want todays discoveries being published now, not 2 or 3 years later.

      FTDNA, Genographic and everyone else needs to remember something here, it is thanks to the paying customers who's money and DNA contributed to the many discoveries being made at such a fast pace today, and to make the paying public wait for acadmic studies to be published is to me poor public relations.

      We have texts, tweets, email, email lists, message boards, web sites, facebook, news media and more, allowing the DNA customer almost instant access to todays DNA discoveries who clearly want to hear more about those discoveries now, not in 2 or 3 years from now.

      Todays SNP discoveries are todays news, it isn't new news 2 or 3 years from now. I honestly believe FTDNA, Genographic and everyone else in the industry could do a much better job at public relations by getting the lastest discoveries published in a more timely manor. Waiting on the academic community to get their research published in 2 or 3 years from now, is not good public relations in this fast paced tech savvy world.

      I think FTDNA and Genographic both need to do a much better job at getting the SNP tree updated in a more timely manor because those newly discovered SNP's are very often a direct result of the willingness of the paying public who want answers today, not be made to have to wait 2 or 3 years from now.

      The acadmic communities snail paced research while very important, does not satisfy the tech savvy DNA customer who wants news being reported at a moments notice. People want todays discoveries being reported now, not in years to come.
      I think FTDNA needs to take another look at what the customer wants and needs and be more willing to satisfy their customers by publishing an up to date SNP tree more often, at least once a year at the least.

      When the paying customer is left at the mercy of the snails paced academic community, many folks have a short attention span, short patience and grow frustrated at the lack of SNP progress.

      I am a surname project and Haplo Group project Admin of 9 years, and I can tell FTDNA from personal experience that some of the more tech savvy particiapnts in my projects have voiced out their frustrations to me via private emails about having to be made to wait 2 or 3 years just for the
      Y tree to be updated because you are waiting for the acadmic community to publish their research.

      The more tech savvy participants simply loose patience having to wait on the academic community to get their research published.
      They are the paying customer who are all to eager to spend even more money on deeper SNP testing when made available.
      They want news now, they want to hear more about the discoveries being made now, they don't want to have to wait on the snails paced academic community to get their works published to hear old news 2 or 3 years from now.
      Last edited by Donald Locke; 11th November 2013, 06:34 AM.

      Comment


      • #18
        oops, duplicate post which I just deleted

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by gtc View Post
          Re Spencer Wells, it may be recalled that at the 2012 FTDNA Conference he gave a presentation via Skype in which he showed some sort of tree but there was a prohibition on it being photographed and published. The expectation from that session was that he and his team were about to publish in an academic journal. Alas, here we are 12 months later and nothing.

          To my mind the only academics with the gumption to take the bull by the horns publish anything halfway useful and recent has been Mannis Van Oven, et al, with their paper "Seeing the Wood for the Trees: A Minimal Reference Phylogeny for the Human Y Chromosome" which has been accepted for publication in the scientific journal Human Mutation but has yet to go through the full editorial process.

          Of course anything published in this area is out of date overnight, but Van Oven's aims are clearly stated:

          "the large and increasing amount of information included in the 'complete' Ychromosome phylogeny, which now already includes many thousands of identified Y-SNPs, can be overwhelming and complicates its understanding as well as the task of selecting suitable markers for genotyping purposes in evolutionary, demographic, anthropological, genealogical, medical and forensic studies. As a solution, we introduce a concise reference phylogeny whereby we do not aim to provide an exhaustive tree that includes all known YSNPs but, rather, a quite stable reference tree aiming for optimal global discrimination capacity based on a strongly reduced set that includes only the most resolving Y-SNPs. Furthermore, with this reference tree we wish to propose a common standard for Y-marker as well as Y-haplogroup nomenclature. The current version of our tree is based on a core set of 417 branch-defining Y-SNPs and is available online at http://www.phylotree.org/Y."
          Thanks for that.

          Seems a reasonable approach to me. I like it.

          I added the bookmark to my DNA folder.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Donald Locke View Post
            I am a surname project and Haplo Group project Admin of 9 years, and I can tell FTDNA from personal experience that some of the more tech savvy particiapnts in my projects have voiced out their frustrations to me via private emails about having to be made to wait 2 or 3 years just for the Y tree to be updated because you are waiting for the acadmic community to publish their research.
            I have bolded what I consider the significant part of your complaint, which is a very common one believe me. So, have you actually told FTDNA what you and your project participants think about their Y Halpotree update policy?

            Comment


            • #21
              I saw this on another forum.
              "Next week, the Nat Geo team goes to Ireland and will be looking for the first migrants and settlers in Ireland – both for Y DNA and mitochondrial DNA. Dr. Vilars says “something happened” about 4000 years ago that changed the frequency of the various haplogroups found in the population. This “something” is not well understood today but he feels it may be a cultural movement of some sort and is still being studied.

              The new Ireland data should be available on the National Geographic website within a couple of weeks."

              Comment


              • #22
                That is during the height of the Beaker Period in Ireland - about 4,000 years ago. The Beaker Folk first began arriving in Ireland about 2500 BC. By about 2000 BC they may have begun achieving population dominance, at least in their y-dna lines.

                The French archaeologist and linguist Henri Hubert believed the Beaker Folk brought an early form of Celtic to the Isles. He referred to the Beaker Folk in Ireland as the "Goidels".
                Last edited by Stevo; 12th November 2013, 08:10 AM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Stevo View Post
                  The Beaker Folk first began arriving in Ireland about 2500 BC. By about 2000 BC they may have begun achieving population dominance, at least in their y-dna lines.
                  Not only y-dna dominance, but red hair gene proliferation.

                  See photo of modern Irish Beaker;')
                  Attached Files

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Donald Locke View Post
                    I think FTDNA and Genographic both need to do a much better job at getting the SNP tree updated in a more timely manor because those newly discovered SNP's are very often a direct result of the willingness of the paying public who want answers today, not be made to have to wait 2 or 3 years from now.
                    At the conference this weekend, FTDNA specifically said they plan to make updates to the Y tree happen much more quick going forward, after the new 2014 tree is out.

                    Elise

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by efgen View Post
                      At the conference this weekend, FTDNA specifically said they plan to make updates to the Y tree happen much more quick going forward, after the new 2014 tree is out.
                      Thanks Elise.

                      I've also read somewhere that Miguel Vilar said that the Y-tree publication is "months away."

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by ajmr1a1 View Post
                        Not only y-dna dominance, but red hair gene proliferation.

                        See photo of modern Irish Beaker;')
                        Meep meep memeep!!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by ajmr1a1 View Post
                          I've also read somewhere that Miguel Vilar said that the Y-tree publication is "months away."
                          Yep, months away ... and already out of date.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X