Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FTDNA 2014 haplotree update will happen on April 25

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

  • #76
    Why did they have to "kill" R1b-L47 when it already existed in the old tree? Now this particular line I administrate has gone back to L48+. I like this "new" tree less and less.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by McNinja View Post
      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.
      A number of us had advocated your suggestion some months ago. The new tree is totally incomprehensible for the average customer. I am a J2a1b and am glad the Y dna J Project still retains an alpha-numeric system while listing terminal mutations.

      How can a classification system that deliberately ignores information be justified. As Vinnie has noted this is pseudoscience. Converting everything to numbers does not make it more scientific.
      Last edited by josh w.; 26 April 2014, 10:06 AM.

      Comment


      • #78
        You have to love change and updates. I know that the new Y-tree is based only on Geno 2.0, which I have tested. I know that only the positive result transferred to the new tree. My new position is R-Z12 from R-L48 and I have a confirmed R-Z12 position. What is really funny about all this is that none of my Geno 2.0 results are showing as tested positive, they are all showing presumed positive. The only results that are showing positive or negative is what I had tested with the FTDNA Deep Clade test and R-Z12 was not part of that test. So my confirmed placement is based on presumed positive results?

        Comment


        • #79
          Here's a more politically correct bulk message from a haplogroup project that was approved. Guess I need to work on my wording.

          "You will have recently received notification of the New FTdna Haplotree with the added new SNPs.

          Before you consider ordering New SNPs, please consider first be in contact with me and I will be pleased to assist in advising the most appropriate snp to order."

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by gerlyons View Post
            You have to love change and updates. I know that the new Y-tree is based only on Geno 2.0, which I have tested. I know that only the positive result transferred to the new tree. My new position is R-Z12 from R-L48 and I have a confirmed R-Z12 position. What is really funny about all this is that none of my Geno 2.0 results are showing as tested positive, they are all showing presumed positive. The only results that are showing positive or negative is what I had tested with the FTDNA Deep Clade test and R-Z12 was not part of that test. So my confirmed placement is based on presumed positive results?
            I don't know what they are doing, but in your case it looks as though they have given priority to any in-house single SNP testing (such as Z12) over other sources.

            I note that they have equated Z383 to Z12, whereas Z383 is still "under investigation" as far as ISOGG is concerned, so I have to wonder what they got their Z383 information from -- presumably a decision by Genographic?

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by vinnie View Post
              Here's a more politically correct bulk message from a haplogroup project that was approved. Guess I need to work on my wording.
              If you haven't already done so, you could set up a Yahoo Group and communicate directly with each other.

              Comment


              • #82
                It's too late now. I already ordered the new SNP shown in blue on the chart. I hope it's valid for my R-L664.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Svein View Post
                  Why did they have to "kill" R1b-L47 when it already existed in the old tree? Now this particular line I administrate has gone back to L48+. I like this "new" tree less and less.
                  Me too

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by PDHOTLEN View Post
                    It's too late now. I already ordered the new SNP shown in blue on the chart. I hope it's valid for my R-L664.
                    If you ordered in error, call the office on Monday and tell them to cancel it. You shouldn't pay for a product you don't need.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by vinnie View Post
                      If you ordered in error, call the office on Monday and tell them to cancel it. You shouldn't pay for a product you don't need.
                      Agree. There should still be time to do this before the orders are batched.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by vinnie View Post
                        If you ordered in error, call the office on Monday and tell them to cancel it. You shouldn't pay for a product you don't need.
                        Send an email to their help desk now, no need to wait
                        for the long phone waits tomorrow. Batches are on
                        Thursdays, there's no super rush.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Oh, I'll just let it ride. I'm hard-of-hearing and don't use the phone anyway.

                          The SNP in question is R-CTS55768. Does anybody here know about that new SNP (for L664)?

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by PDHOTLEN View Post
                            Oh, I'll just let it ride. I'm hard-of-hearing and don't use the phone anyway.

                            The SNP in question is R-CTS55768. Does anybody here know about that new SNP (for L664)?
                            4/30/14:

                            My test is due back on June 17th. I forgot to note the batch number. It'll probably be negative. I was hoping for some expert feedback about this particular SNP. I once saw something in passing on another forum that a new SNP was found for a couple of people in another subgroup, such as A or C (I'm in B). This could be that SNP.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Has anyone else had their Genographic results vanish? I notified FTdna of the problem of genographic negatives not being added to the new tree results, as some other have, but just found that all my other SNPs have vanished.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by rdbox26hs View Post
                                Has anyone else had their Genographic results vanish?
                                Yes, the SNP results just vanished for several members of my project.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X