New Origins vs. Old Origins - Can anyone actually explain?

[Scott Ritchie]

FTDNA reliability?

Yeah I hear you, starting to doubt FTDNA ability to provide reliable results with MO. They have changed it so many times I don't trust the results anymore. I doesn't seem like updating, more like completely different results.

[chris]

My old result: 65% South Europe and 35% Asia Minor

My results are now very good and accurate:
European 98% : Southest Europe 94% , West and Central Europe 4%;
Traces: South Central Asia, South America, West Middle Est.
I'm of South Italy, central Apulia.

[malchik]

My old result: 65% South Europe and 35% Asia Minor

My results are now very good and accurate:
European 98% : Southest Europe 94% , West and Central Europe 4%;
Traces: South Central Asia, South America, West Middle Est.
I'm of South Italy, central Apulia.

What criteria do you use to state it is accurate?

[chris]

What criteria do you use to state it is accurate?

I'm from the South Italy. Based on my documented genealogy in each branch up to 1400, and for some branches even further, I have also far ancestors of North Italy,Croatia, England, France, Spain, and the oldest Normans and Lombards. These are also confirmed by the match from these Nations on FTDNA.
The new MyOrigins is better then the oldest.I expected only a percentage or trace at least from Spain, Scandinavia or British. Maybe they are included in West and Central Europe.

[bruchjm]

Why hasn't anyone from FTDNA explained?

Like many others in this forum I completely lost my Scandinavian component; 41% to 0%. While the old percentage seemed inconsistent with my paper trail I rationalized it as perhaps an anomaly from my Norman, Northumbrian and Yorkshire ancestry. Additionally I had a small Asia Minor component under the old system that was consistent with my Y-DNA J2 haplogroup. This too, disappeared in the new version!? Rather the touting the new and improved graphics, where is the rationale behind everyone's radical shifts in autosomal results?

[PATRICKM]

Lost most of my Scandinavian?

I too have lost most of my Scandinavia for some reason. I have a paper trail on my mom's side with recent Norwegian and Swedish immigrants in northern Iowa.

Went from Scandinavia 45% down to 8%, what the???

My Origins 1.0

94% European
-Scandinavia 45%
-British Isles 31%
-Southern 14%
-Finland 4%
5% Middle Eastern
-Asia Minor 5%

My Origins 2.0

91% European
-Scandinavia 8%
-British Isles 73%
-Finland 7%
-Southeast E. 3%
6% Middle Eastern
-Asia Minor 6%
Trace
S. Central Africa
Oceania

[Aniara]

These are my changes. It's pretty consistent with DNA.land and GEDmatch results. I just don't know enough about my dad's side to say if it's better or not. My maternal grandfather was Portuguese and there is Spanish ancestry on my dad's side, so I would have preferred to see Iberia broken down more, but I may be expecting too much right now.

I was hopeful for some Sephardi, even just a little (not because of documentation as I have none regarding that), and I have triangulated one segment on GEDmatch which I share with some Ashkenazi testers (and no non-Ashkenazi that I noticed), but maybe that's what the trace of West Middle East is. I hope as they continue to get more samples for the reference groups, it will become clearer.

I appear to have a lot of trace results, but I assume that can be expected in a Hispanic person.

[Odis]

why are some people getting satisfied results or their results are close to the old myOrigins..if mine are now correct, they had to be big-time wrong before, how can one go from 64% western Europe to 0% and from 25% British to 92%....when can I say my results are now correct...and I do know or think? they have shifted to a more geographic locations rather than a definitive ancestry....

[Aniara]

As you can see above, my non-European figures haven't changed much, but my European has changed completely. Technically, I suppose, it's a little more specific in that it's showing strictly Spain/Portugal (with the stray trace from Eastern Europe) whereas before it seemed to cover several countries.

I have no idea how accurate this is in terms of more ancient ancestry, but it does likely represent the last maybe 500 years of my ancestry given what I've been told. I would honestly prefer to know about more ancient ancestry. I thought the older version did that. I don't think one result is more accurate than the other. I think it just depends on how old the DNA is that we're being compared to.