Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

new myorigins jewish?

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by josh w. View Post
    My last post on this issue, since it is clear that you are biased as well. Your view is based on a false assumption for which you have no evidence.
    Thank you for replying.

    I am sorry, but it is actually quite funny how you call me and Maciano biased but you ignore many many many posts of customers complaining of strange results and you didnt answer any of my questions.

    May I challenge you to explain these strange results one by one: http://forums.familytreedna.com/showthread.php?t=41496 and then answer the questions I posted before to you?

    Are you really sure that your results are absolutely NOT affected by the some of the ridiculous issues that people get?

    Is it possible that in this particular case they are simply offsetting your ancestry to full Ashkenazi ancestry, just by coincidence or some preprogrammed rule?

    Go ahead

    Originally posted by josh w. View Post
    The results are also consistent with known family history.
    What about the unknown?

    Do you assume your known family history is 100% right?

    Do you assume that the accuracy of the tests is 100%?

    If you answer yes to any of these questions, cant it be a false assumption?

    Originally posted by josh w. View Post
    Speaking of small samples, you failed to notice that the complaints regarding the Jewish issue are selective rather than representative.
    You failed to notice that the case in debate is about reliability of test results in face of the many reported issues, which raise questions about any results, include those of Jewish ancestry.

    If 99.9% of people say the Earth is flat and 0.1% say is round, who is right?

    Do you call the 0.1% selective and the 99.9% representative?...

    Originally posted by josh w. View Post
    I have wasted enough time.
    You waste my time if you dodge my questions, sure, but you did not waste you time.

    You learned that 'the accuracy of an ancestry predictor is not ruled by CUSTOMER SATISFACTION but by SCIENTIFIC FACTS.'

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by JamesBianco View Post
      Frowned upon perhaps by Rome, on the village level with a small population the families intermarried over and over. I can also say this is true of French Canada as 1/4 of my ancestry is FC. Small isolated catholic populations made due with who was around!

      The Church records of my grandmother's Sicilian village (Carini) exist back to 1528 (Baptisms Marriages Burials) and were first microfilmed and then subsequently digitized (and uploaded to their website). I have been able to take my grandmothers lines back to the earliest records for most of her ancestry, 700 pages of cascading ancestry charts (she was born in 1922). The families repeat over and over and intermarry repeatedly, 16 lines of descent alone from Biagio Marciano who lived in the 1600s just to name one. My grandmother herself had three Marciano grandparents, her mother and father being first cousins, and her maternal Grandparents 2nd and 4th cousins (at least). Ive attached a chart I wrote out showing the first few generations of her ancestry.
      It's not Marciano, it's Marcianó.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Minosse View Post
        It's not Marciano, it's Marcianó.
        I wrote that chart by hand so I am obviously aware of that. I didn't take the time to type the accent in my posts.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by malchik View Post
          Thank you for replying.

          I am sorry, but it is actually quite funny how you call me and Maciano biased but you ignore many many many posts of customers complaining of strange results and you didnt answer any of my questions.

          You learned that 'the accuracy of an ancestry predictor is not ruled by CUSTOMER SATISFACTION but by SCIENTIFIC FACTS.'
          Seems like there is a lot of selective ignoring going on over this issue, not just by Josh. One obvious concern being overlooked is that some of us are showing Sephardic Jew in percentages of note (11% in my case) and whose parents show no Jewish at all. I have 1/4 Iranian (Middle East) and 1/4 Sicilian ancestry and both those groups have been brought into the discussion as potentially skewing the Sephardic results. Why then only in my results and yet not in my parents?
          Last edited by JamesBianco; 28 April 2017, 09:55 AM.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by JamesBianco View Post
            Seems like there is a lot of selective ignoring going on over this issue, not just by Josh. One obvious concern being overlooked is that some of us are showing Sephardic Jew in percentages of note (11% in my case) and whose parents show no Jewish at all. I have 1/4 Iranian (Middle East) and 1/4 Sicilian ancestry and both those groups have been brought into the discussion as potentially skewing the Sephardic results. Why then only in my results and yet not in my parents?
            Your example and others are evidence that the Sephardic sample may be skewing the results for a lot of people, in addition to other issues, particularly with the many British heritage problems I've read about. I don't trust anyone's MO v2 results unless they can be corroborated with at least three of the following: known genealogy, matches, peer-reviewed papers, and results from other analyses; e.g., 23, Ancestry, Gedmatch. Regarding Sicilians, why are some of those who showed Jewish in MO v1 now showing 100% Southern European?

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by vinnie View Post
              Your example and others are evidence that the Sephardic sample may be skewing the results for a lot of people, in addition to other issues, particularly with the many British heritage problems I've read about. I don't trust anyone's MO v2 results unless they can be corroborated with at least three of the following: known genealogy, matches, peer-reviewed papers, and results from other analyses; e.g., 23, Ancestry, Gedmatch. Regarding Sicilians, why are some of those who showed Jewish in MO v1 now showing 100% Southern European?
              I should also add that in the earlier version of my origins the 11% now showing as Sephardic was designated (as part of a total of 19%) as Middle East which I would have inherited from my Iranian grandfather. This would indicate a clear misrepresentation of middle eastern results into the Sephardic area. As Sicilians and southern italians have middle eastern/north African ancestry this would explain the issues with this group as well. But something is clearly going on with whatever algorithm is being used in version 2 as the Sephardic designations are sporadic and not consistent, even in their flawed applications.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by JamesBianco View Post
                But something is clearly going on with whatever algorithm is being used in version 2 as the Sephardic designations are sporadic and not consistent, even in their flawed applications.
                That's the core of the problem with the new version of myOrgins. It's not only that some results are very difficult to account for, but also that people with similar ancestry get significantly different results. The lack of consistency is as bad as what seems to be inaccuracy in many cases.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by JamesBianco View Post
                  Seems like there is a lot of selective ignoring going on over this issue, not just by Josh. One obvious concern being overlooked is that some of us are showing Sephardic Jew in percentages of note (11% in my case) and whose parents show no Jewish at all. I have 1/4 Iranian (Middle East) and 1/4 Sicilian ancestry and both those groups have been brought into the discussion as potentially skewing the Sephardic results. Why then only in my results and yet not in my parents?
                  I did not ignore any issue. My point was that we cannot make generalized statements without knowing the percentage of customers who had complaints. I pointed to the pattern where those with high Jewish percentages appear to have fewer complaints than those with low Jewish percentages---Khazaria made the same point about high percentages. This hardly implies that low percentage complaints should be ignored. I have made a number of posts for explaining or revising MO 2.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by josh w. View Post
                    I did not ignore any issue. My point was that we cannot make generalized statements without knowing the percentage of customers who had complaints. I pointed to the pattern where those with high Jewish percentages appear to have fewer complaints than those with low Jewish percentages---Khazaria made the same point about high percentages. This hardly implies that low percentage complaints should be ignored. I have made a number of posts for explaining or revising MO 2.
                    I am suggesting a differentiated rather than global approach. This appeared t fit the J Test. Some had suggested that it was useless. However with Ashkenazi percentages of around 25%, the test appears to be accurate. Below that level there are too many false positives. With MO 2 there may be more false positives and false negatives at lower levels.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by josh w. View Post
                      I am suggesting a differentiated rather than global approach. This appeared t fit the J Test. Some had suggested that it was useless. However with Ashkenazi percentages of around 25%, the test appears to be accurate. Below that level there are too many false positives. With MO 2 there may be more false positives and false negatives at lower levels.
                      Qualification, the J Test needs more differentiation. At lower percentage levels it is difficult to separate false positives from true partial Ashkenazi ancestry.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        the new MyOrigin is a completely stupid stuff I wonder what kind of people of FTDNA made that ?

                        Originally posted by jillybean78 View Post
                        I take it back, my husband and our son now show 3% Ashkenazi. Neither of my husband's parents have any Ashkenazi on their origins, nor do I. How is this possible? It's obviously a mistake.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X