Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Geno 2.0 Y-Results

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Wing_Genealogis View Post
    Unfortunately, It looks like NatGeo is basing their tree only on the SNPs they are testing (and actually, only on those SNPs which are producing results, as there are a small number of probes/SNPs which are failing).

    For instance, under R1b, P312 and L48 are not on the chip, and Z301 (which is above L48) is producing false negative results for people who are known to be positive for it.

    Because of these missing SNPs, the long haplogroup name from NatGeo is seriously flawed in many instances. For instance, they are currently listing 12 subclades of U106 (What they call R1B1A1C) which is causing them to use the letters A, B & C (for 10, 11 & 12).
    So what does this actually mean? Is the Geno 2.0 a failure? Or will they be able to resolve this problem? I think this happened to me as well - they list me as I-Z138 (I1a>)but then have me on thier 'stories' section as I1C.

    Comment


    • #17
      2.0 is far from a failure, wait and see what is coming.

      Comment


      • #18
        I totally agree with darroll the Geno test is FAR from a failure. It is bleeding edge technology, with all of the typical growing pains.

        While I would hope NatGeo fixes their issue with the full haplogroup designation, I wouldn't hold my breath on that one (with FT-DNA going on record of discontinuing the usage of full haplogroup names).

        The combination of extensive Y-SNP testing, a fairly robust determination of mtDNA haplogroup designation, and autosomal testing tailored to deep-rooted ancestry in a chip at a fairly modest price (along with the scientific reputation and long-term commitment of the NatGeo) makes this a winner.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Wing_Genealogis View Post
          I totally agree with darroll the Geno test is FAR from a failure. It is bleeding edge technology, with all of the typical growing pains.

          While I would hope NatGeo fixes their issue with the full haplogroup designation, I wouldn't hold my breath on that one (with FT-DNA going on record of discontinuing the usage of full haplogroup names).

          The combination of extensive Y-SNP testing, a fairly robust determination of mtDNA haplogroup designation, and autosomal testing tailored to deep-rooted ancestry in a chip at a fairly modest price (along with the scientific reputation and long-term commitment of the NatGeo) makes this a winner.
          I still don't understand what this means for those who have ordered it now? Are we gonna have to wait a long time for them to rightly give us a proper Y Hg? What's the point in getting our raw data if it is 'producing false negative results' as you say. It may not be a failure in the long run but what about for us who have spent $200 presently?

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Wing_Genealogis View Post
            Unfortunately, It looks like NatGeo is basing their tree only on the SNPs they are testing (and actually, only on those SNPs which are producing results, as there are a small number of probes/SNPs which are failing).

            For instance, under R1b, P312 and L48 are not on the chip, and Z301 (which is above L48) is producing false negative results for people who are known to be positive for it.

            Because of these missing SNPs, the long haplogroup name from NatGeo is seriously flawed in many instances. For instance, they are currently listing 12 subclades of U106 (What they call R1B1A1C) which is causing them to use the letters A, B & C (for 10, 11 & 12).
            I'm amazed that NG would bother to use any form of longhand designation given that they haven't published a reference tree.

            And, as has been discussed ad nauseum, long hand names (per the ISOGG tree) area already too long for usefulness.

            Comment


            • #21
              And shorthand names are too short for usefulness.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by 1_mke View Post
                And shorthand names are too short for usefulness.
                Any form of clade name is non-useful without the context of an up-to-date haplotree.

                Comment


                • #23
                  It would appear that NG is inconsistent. My haplogroup R-L21 was named
                  as it should be. I know I am actually DF13 but that wasn't tested by NG only some SNP's downstream of it. My raw results finally appeared today so for those who haven't check today may want to take a look.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Has anyone seen any YDNA tree from Geno 2.0 ?
                    If so where do I find it.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X