No matches in over 30 days. Market saturation?

[1_mke]

The problem with FTDNA is they lack operational maturity. They have power outages that wipe their database and take weeks to recover from as a recent example. There is no way in heck a company like Ancestry.com would hitch their wagon to FTDNA given that kind of example.

FTDNA does a lot of things right, but they just can't seem to avoid major glitches.

[gtc]

The problem with FTDNA is they lack operational maturity. They have power outages that wipe their database and take weeks to recover from as a recent example. There is no way in heck a company like Ancestry.com would hitch their wagon to FTDNA given that kind of example.

FTDNA does a lot of things right, but they just can't seem to avoid major glitches.

I think "operational maturity" is a good description of what's lacking. Their IT effort often strikes me as sub-par. Losing data through a power outage is unforgivable for a company that depends on data for its living. Customer communication is also quite poor.

Ultimately a company's operational culture reflects its management style. As companies grow, and more importantly as their competition grows, management capability has to grow too, or face the inevitable consequences.

[teresann]

You all must have methods that you use to find matches that I haven't figured out yet. While I have 300+ matches on FTDNA and well over a thousand now on Ancestry - I have yet to find any new connection. Everything I have found was already proven by the paper trail.

I guess it is good to have confirmation that genetic and paper matches - but my goal was to break some brick walls. So far I have a lot of matches who are supposedly conneced but who match nothing.

As for Ancestry, yes there are lots of matches - the one cousin match (which I already knew via the paper trail) did not identify the right connection yet both our trees were correct. I agree the data could be useful but without a "in common with" feature or raw data, in my opinion it is very cumbersome to look at anything but a one to one comparison.

How are you all dealing with the data given the lack of a "in common with" feature?

[sspeters41]

Hi Teresann

I am in the same boat you are in. Lots of supposed matches, but very very few confirmed matches. To make matters worse, all my confirmed matches are on my maternal side. I have yet to even find a possible candidate on my paternal side. I have direct ancestry to many common names on his side, but nothing has turned up.

I too had hoped to penetrate some brick walls, but so far all my matches were already known on paper and not a single unknown cousin has been found. I entered the FF testing on the first day I could with the hope of actually locating unknown relatives, but this has not happened.

I think that if my proposed matches are valid, then the range of relationship is so far out that it is allmost impossible to ever find the common ancestor. I have a very good paper trail. I know all my ggg's and a few further back. A large % of my matches provide no surnames or GEDCOMS and those that do, show areas and surnames that seem to be out of place.

I am still hoping that I did not waste my money and that with time something will eventually show up.

[JPHutchins]

Bulk result reporting??

Is FTDNA now just reporting FF matches once a month or perhaps twice per month?

Since July 1, I have only received results on 4 days:
July 19 I received 8 matches
Aug 10 I received 6 matches
Aug 31 I received 10 matches
Sept 30 I received 9 matches

It used to be that almost every week I would recieve 1 or 2 matches. Am I going to have to wait until Oct 31 to receive the next batch of matches? I now have 185 matches.

I thought that the recent sales were drawing in lots of new people to be tested.

[mkdexter]

Is FTDNA now just reporting FF matches once a month or perhaps twice per month?

Since July 1, I have only received results on 4 days:
July 19 I received 8 matches
Aug 10 I received 6 matches
Aug 31 I received 10 matches
Sept 30 I received 9 matches

It used to be that almost every week I would recieve 1 or 2 matches. Am I going to have to wait until Oct 31 to receive the next batch of matches? I now have 185 matches.

I thought that the recent sales were drawing in lots of new people to be tested.

FTDNA is NOT scheduling (that I know of) kits on a per weekly, per bi-weekly or per monthly basis. FTDNA reports them as the come in. If there has been a slow down, it is due to less kits coming in, or a hold due to IT changes or lab changes.

[Colin]

Looks like they are only updating batches once a month now, any one know why?
Had 2 kits come up with mtDNA HV1 matches lastw eek.

[rod]

Batch 484 (expected date 11/21) has population finder results, no family finder matches yet.

[ajmr1a1]

No FF statistics on the FTDNA website but list others like these:

7,109 SURNAME PROJECTS
38,244 unique surnames
244,964 Y-DNA records in the database
157,658 25-marker records in the database
137,573 37-marker records in the database
63,654 67-marker records in the database
150,685 mtDNA records in the database
20,696 FGS records in the database


Does anyone know how many people have tested FF?

[Bertp]

very interesting:

My mother's Population Finder just came in. Both my parents are descendants of British colonists with a little Native American mixed in. Both having darker features than me; I apparently took after my very fair-skinned paternal grandfather, having blond hair as a youth and sunburning easily. My father was only 1/8 Creek but give him a day or two in the sun and he could have passed as a Creek.

Here are our PF results

Father - Europe (Orcadian) 100.00% margin of error ±0.01%
Mother - Europe (Orcadian) 100.00% margin of error ±0.01%

Me - Western Europe (Orcadian 94.85% margin of error ±1.39%
Middle East (Adygei, Bedouin South, Druze, Iranian, Jewish) 4.84% margin of error ±1.38%