Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FTDNA 2014 haplotree update will happen on April 25

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by Stevo View Post
    The tree is a work in progress, and FTDNA plans another update this year that will incorporate Big Y and outside sources, perhaps from Chromo2 and Full Genomes testing.
    I must emphasize that the greatest omission is not the recent SNPs from Big Y etc., but rather the 2- and 3-year-old SNPs from FTDNA's own WTY project.

    L1025 and L1029 were placed on the ISOGG tree 2 years ago, but are missing from this "new" tree. L550 was placed on the ISOGG tree 3 years ago, and N-L550 has been a common Geno 2.0 classification since its inception, yet L550 was not included on the "new" tree.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Zaru View Post
      My cousin's haplogroup (and my grandfather's)has been changedfrom E1b1a to E1b1b- this hopefully is an error, as this would represent a huge paradigm shift culturally for us.
      Apparently the new tree flips E1b1a and E1b1b. Those who are in E1b1b now find themselves in the "new" E1b1a.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by vinnie View Post
        My bulk e-mails were not approved.
        What did you write?

        Comment


        • #64
          What a complete waste of time that update was, no DF27 so I'm still P312, if your going to update the tree FTDNA do it properly and base it on:

          http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpR.html

          Basing it on the Genographic tree means that loads of customers are short changed as their SNP isn't included! All I can say is: , which the normal reaction when FTDNA does stuff!

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by lgmayka View Post
            I must emphasize that the greatest omission is not the recent SNPs from Big Y etc., but rather the 2- and 3-year-old SNPs from FTDNA's own WTY project.
            I guess that's because Thomas Krahn is no longer there to protect/promote those SNPs within FTDNA which, when such things happen, comes across as a dysfunctional organization internally.

            Comment


            • #66
              Just a suggestion, they should keep the old shorthand for the name of the branches (i.e, R1a1a1a...), then list the SNPs and SNP shorthand on the right hand side as they are now. I know these keep changing but it would be nice if they kept updating it along with the changes, put one person in charge of that on a biweekly basis or something.

              Comment


              • #67
                In addition they seem to have swapped J2b2 and J2b1a in the haplogroup projects. I'm listed as J2b2 J-M241 when I log in, but the projects are all a mess now with M205 (J2b1) as J2b2 and M241 (J2b2) as J2b1a.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by T-Fox View Post
                  What did you write?
                  "Group Members,

                  I suggest that you do not order new SNPs based on the new y tree until all the bugs are worked out of it, or unless/until you've talked to your haplogroup project administrator(s) to confirm that you should test new SNPs."

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by efgen View Post
                    Ignore the longhand haplogroup names -- look at the SNPs.

                    In this particular case, the branches that were E1b1a and E1b1b have simply been re-ordered on the tree. The longhand notation will be going away completely, but some of the myFTDNA pages and the GAP are still showing it. So since the branches have been re-ordered, the remaining longhand names are just reflecting the new order of the branches. But it's just temporary until the remaining pages are updated to exclusively use the shorthand notations.

                    Elise
                    I figured it was something like that. Thanks for the info.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by lgmayka View Post
                      I must emphasize that the greatest omission is not the recent SNPs from Big Y etc., but rather the 2- and 3-year-old SNPs from FTDNA's own WTY project.

                      L1025 and L1029 were placed on the ISOGG tree 2 years ago, but are missing from this "new" tree. L550 was placed on the ISOGG tree 3 years ago, and N-L550 has been a common Geno 2.0 classification since its inception, yet L550 was not included on the "new" tree.
                      It's currently a mess, yes. I tend to take a hopeful outlook, however, particularly when it comes to FTDNA, since I have always had a positive experience with them, so I expect them to iron out the difficulties . . . sooner rather than later.

                      I do think they should have waited until everything was right and up to date before rolling out the new tree, though. I would have preferred waiting an extra few weeks, or whatever it would have taken, to a premature roll-out fraught with difficulties and confusion.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        As I've posted here and there, these are just three problems that I'm aware of that have nothing to do with whether the tree was based on GENO, WTY, FGC, etc.

                        1. A J2 project member is now R1b; thankfully, he shows "confirmed" and no new SNPs are suggested. However, he's not the only case I've heard of, and I don't know if the other ones do have suggested SNPs to purchase.

                        2. The tree of my J2 cousin (who is distantly related to the one above) suggests that he order L222, which is found in both J1 & J2, but to make matters worse, it's actually highlighted under J1 for him!

                        3. My tree suggests that I order 4 GENO SNPs that to the best of my knowledge I'm negative for, no-calls from GENO not withstanding.

                        I call these bugs, wouldn't you? Apparently, FTDNA doesn't want any e-mails going to customers telling them not to purchase a product - okay, I get that - but the flip side is FTDNA is going to have to deal with people who get pissed off from ordering SNPs they never should have in the first place; they'll have to issue refunds, and will potentially lose customers.

                        There's a time and place to just be honest with people, and this is one of them. I have more respect for people and companies who are just honest to begin with, can admit mistakes, and do what they can not to make a bad situation worse.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          That does not sound bad. Didn't Rebekah say that some Nir guy agreed to end the censorship?

                          Or maybe the bulk email program is broken and you should just try sending the message again and contacting helpdesk? Elise?

                          Originally posted by vinnie View Post
                          "Group Members,

                          I suggest that you do not order new SNPs based on the new y tree until all the bugs are worked out of it, or unless/until you've talked to your haplogroup project administrator(s) to confirm that you should test new SNPs."

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Stevo View Post
                            I do think they should have waited until everything was right and up to date before rolling out the new tree, though. I would have preferred waiting an extra few weeks, or whatever it would have taken, to a premature roll-out fraught with difficulties and confusion.
                            Exactly. Did they test this with a project before they released it? The project I referred to above has only 13 members, yet had they used mine or someone else's small project, they may have been able to avoid a lot of this confusion. Just noticed that another project member has a dup SNP highlighted (L247) that shows up three times under Hap E.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by T-Fox View Post
                              That does not sound bad. Didn't Rebekah say that some Nir guy agreed to end the censorship?

                              Or maybe the bulk email program is broken and you should just try sending the message again and contacting helpdesk? Elise?
                              No, the system is not broken; I received a reply from one of the help desk folks who told me that it wasn't approved and asked for my help with notifying them of bugs. So I did, after I personally contacted several people from another project who jumped right in and started ordering SNPs.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by T-Fox View Post
                                That does not sound bad. Didn't Rebekah say that some Nir guy agreed to end the censorship?

                                Or maybe the bulk email program is broken and you should just try sending the message again and contacting helpdesk? Elise?
                                I have 4 messages in to the Help Desk for a similar situation.
                                My Bulk Mail did not go out either and at least 3 people ordered snps from the Auto Select. Haplogroup Admins are contacting them also.

                                One big concern for me is that my first cousin has two snps on AutoSelect, M26 and L160 despite the fact that he has had PF4088 ordered since January. He does not need to test all of these obviously BUT his PF4088 order says it is pending and also is listed in RED as Negative.
                                Elise contacted someone for me yesterday.

                                I am the Co Admin at Fant Faunt and everyone else has 1-2 snps on autoselect despite it being a "Family" clade called Sardinian I2a1 until yesterday.. today it is called a variety of things ( all are I fortunately)
                                I am Admin for 4 other groups, upwards of 300 people. I cannot get to all of them individually.
                                So my response to Help is: "We appreciate you writing to Family Tree DNA. Our customer support team works hard to respond to all requests within 3 - 5 business days. Currently, we are experiencing an unusually high email volume. Our apologies if your personalized response is delayed.
                                Our help desk hours are 9 am to 5 pm, Monday through Thursday, and Friday 9 am to 12 pm and 1:00 pm to 5:00 pm Central time. Please note our offices are closed for weekends and holidays.
                                Please refer to your Request ID 63964 when contacting us regarding this issue. "

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X