Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Advertising for other companies?

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

  • Advertising for other companies?

    A member of my project suggested mentioning the SMGF (with the discount to Relative Genetics 26-marker test) to potential new members who haven't tested yet. I was just wondering if anyone else advertises this on their project pages in an effort to recruit new members who would otherwise go with the 12-marker test at FTDNA in order to save money. How do you handle this? Mention it privately or publicly?

    Paul

  • #2
    Originally posted by Paul_Sheats
    A member of my project suggested mentioning the SMGF (with the discount to Relative Genetics 26-marker test) to potential new members who haven't tested yet. I was just wondering if anyone else advertises this on their project pages in an effort to recruit new members who would otherwise go with the 12-marker test at FTDNA in order to save money. How do you handle this? Mention it privately or publicly?

    Paul
    Personally I do not as far as the Relative Genetics part. It is much easier to handle a project within one lab due to nomenclature issues and markers tested. I do recognize that money is sometimes a major issue so I do let family know about SMGF as a free source of testing. I do explain that they do not get the results sent to them and they have to keep a close eye on the database to see results for the surname as posted. There is also a time issue as some results do not appear for a year or more. In the case of finances I would much rather have the data and put up with a few inconvieniences.

    Just my two cents worth.
    Last edited by GvdM; 3 July 2006, 01:51 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      I guess I didn't mean that the free 12-marker SMGF results would be used in the surname project, but that by doing the free one, you get a discount to the 26-marker Relative Genetics test, which would be used in the project. Maybe it's not worth mentioning, unless it becomes a financial issue.

      It just seems to me, that however many markers are in common between the 25-marker FTNDA test and the 26-marker Relative Genetics test, it would be more markers than just the 12-marker FTDNA test.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Paul_Sheats
        I guess I didn't mean that the free 12-marker SMGF results would be used in the surname project, but that by doing the free one, you get a discount to the 26-marker Relative Genetics test, which would be used in the project. Maybe it's not worth mentioning, unless it becomes a financial issue.

        It just seems to me, that however many markers are in common between the 25-marker FTNDA test and the 26-marker Relative Genetics test, it would be more markers than just the 12-marker FTDNA test.
        Paul,
        You obviously feel the members of your project have the first call on your loyalty, and that includes making them aware of the best deal they can get for their DNA testing. I agree.
        Does WFN provide the cabability for dispaying test data from other Labs? I currently have test results from three labs, but am not aware of how to display the other two Lab's data on our FTDNA Project site.
        I was pleased to see your I1a-Norse member on the I1a Project site, but curious about the different spelling of the Surname.
        Floyd

        Comment


        • #5
          Floyd,

          Yes, I was given a 112-marker template to use at WFN, which includes other company markers that differ from FTDNA. I'm only using the part of the template with FTDNA markers at this point, but if it becomes a need, I will add the additional markers.

          My surname was changed by my grandfather from Sheets to Sheats in the early 1900's for unknown reasons. It's amazing how many people with this hobby ask me about that. One of the members in my project asked me if I'd found any other potential Sheats members for the project, even after I told him my surname spelling had been changed. As if somehow I was more likely to match a Sheats than a Sheets. Although quite possible, many of the EA spellings were Brittish, not German or Dutch, the latter of which is my likely origin.

          Paul
          Last edited by Paul_Sheats; 4 July 2006, 09:37 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Paul,
            Thanks for the info. I did not set up our OAK project; was later asked to act as co-cordinator. Now, with an AWOL Administrator, I'm trying to catch up.
            The "e" in Oakes has always been a problem for us. If I don't spell it when asked for my name there is about a 75% chance it will be spelled without the "e".
            Floyd

            Comment


            • #7
              Floyd,

              According to ancestry.com, Oakes is more common than Oaks, but I would probably be in the 75% who misspells it. Do you know if your's is Brittish or Irish? Something else?

              Paul

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Paul_Sheats
                Floyd,

                According to ancestry.com, Oakes is more common than Oaks, but I would probably be in the 75% who misspells it. Do you know if your's is Brittish or Irish? Something else?

                Paul
                Paul,
                I can only trace my OAKES line back to a 1732 marriage into the well documented Walcott family of Salem, MA Puritans. So, I have no doubt that my OAKES is English and is solidly in the Anglo-Saxon group of Hg I1a. I have found 10 different OAK(E)S family lines. Only one other is I1a, but is 12 different on the SMGF marker set.
                I will be beating the bushes soon to try to flush out a well document OAKES line that matches mine. I am seriously considering offering to pay for a 12 marker "screening" test for any untested OAK(E)S who has a well documented pedigree into the 17th Century of earlier, through New England.
                Floyd

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Paul_Sheats
                  I guess I didn't mean that the free 12-marker SMGF results would be used in the surname project, but that by doing the free one, you get a discount to the 26-marker Relative Genetics test, which would be used in the project. Maybe it's not worth mentioning, unless it becomes a financial issue.
                  Keep in mind that contributing to the SMGF is not the only way to get the discounted price from Relative Genetics on the 26 marker test. They also offer a "competitive upgrade" to people who can demonstrate that have tested with other companies (like FTDNA) that is the same price as the SMGF deal.

                  This might be useful for projects with lots of I1a participants, since the Relative Genetics test includes DYS462. Otherwise, I'm not sure the five new markers are worth $99. And I know that FTDNA is exploring the addition of DYS462 to their offerings.

                  I would never suggest another company on a page hosted by FTDNA, but that's just me.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Actually, my project pages are hosted by World Families Network, but I get your drift.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Also, I'd be leery of publicly posting details about the SMGF "discount" anywhere since there is not guarantee that the details of that offer (or the offer itself) weren't changed without me knowing it.

                      On the other hand, simply ordering the Relative Genetics "competitive upgrade" directly would ensure that my participants knew beforehand exactly what they were getting.

                      Here's the Relative Genetics page that shows the competitive upgrade options.

                      http://www.relativegenetics.com/rela...onversions.htm

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X