MyOrigins 2.0 is much better.

[Daragon36]

I've seen a lot of complaints about the MyOrigins results being "Wrong" or "Inaccurate". I have to disagree with a lot of you. Some of you don't seem to understand the nature of human migrations, changing borders and the lack of nations in the past. Your DNA was never tied to the newly conceived notion of "Nation States". It was always tribal and always on the move. I have my issues with FTDNA, but I will tell you that the new MyOrigins 2.0 does to me, seem to be more accurate than 1.0. Here is a comparison of MyOrigins 2.0 to 1.0 and to Ancestry 2.0 and 1.0.

MyOrigins 2.0
European----------------- 92%
*British Isles----------- 37%
*Scandinavia------------- 17%
*East Europe------------- 16%
*West and Central Europe- 16%
*Iberia------------------ 3%
*Southeast Europe-------- 3%

Middle Eastern----------- 6%
*Asia Minor-------------- 6%

Trace Results
*North Africa------------ <1%
*East Central Africa----- <1%

MyOrigins 1.0
European---------------- 100%
*British Isles----------- 46%
*Southern Europe--------- 23%
*Scandinavia------------- 20%
*Eastern Europe---------- 11%

Ancestry 2.0(Chip)
European------------------ 98%
*Europe West-------------- 54%
*Ireland------------------ 18%
*Great Britain------------ 13%
*Europe East-------------- 5%
*Scandinavia-------------- 3%
*Italy/Greece------------- 2%
*Finland/Northwest Russia- 2%
*Iberian Peninsula-------- 1%

Other Trace Regions
*Asia South--------------- <1%
*Africa North------------- <1%

Ancestry 1.0(Chip)
European------------------ 98%
*Europe West-------------- 56%
*Ireland------------------ 19%
*Great Britain------------ 9%
*Europe East-------------- 6%
*Scandinavia-------------- 3%
*Italy/Greece------------- 2%
*Finland/Northwest Russia- 2%
*Iberian Peninsula-------- <1%

Other Trace Regions
*Asia South--------------- 1%
*Africa North------------- <1%

[Armando]

So, we aren't saying that there is an incorrect result for everyone. We are saying that the results are too far off for too many people. Even if 70% of the people have a result that makes sense that means there are about 30% of the customers with results that make no sense. You are using anecdotal data to come to a conclusion about an algorithm and a private reference dataset is being used on thousands of people. The reason that a lot of us are complaining about the program isn't because there aren't those of us with kits whose results make sense. It is because some of us have kits from family groups whose kits make absolutely no sense whatsoever. It is statistically impossible for a child to have 0% DNA of a specific ethnicity when both parents have it at more than 30% each. The example I am providing mirrors exactly what a lot of other people are complaining about so I am not just using anecdotal data. There are scores of other people who have test results from family groups and the results come out wildly different. They come out so different that using the excuse of siblings inheriting different autosomal data from each parent does not explain it and neither does changing borders because a child can't have what neither parent has and the child can't miss what the parents have in abundance.

Additionally, 23andme agrees with the genealogy more often than myOrigins 1.0 or myOrigins 2.0. Ancestry isn't as good as 23andme.

[JerryS.]

yep, some people had 15% Mediterranean with 1.0 now they have 0% even with a paper trail of immigration records.... some had 50% British and 5% Scandinavian with 1.0, now they have 6% British and 36% Scandinavian with no known Scandinavian ancestors.

the question is was the 1.0 version wrong, or is the new 2.0version wrong? slight changes is one thing, however large changes show a problem...

[georgian1950]

the question is was the 1.0 version wrong, or is the new 2.0version wrong? slight changes is one thing, however large changes show a problem...

Simple - both are wrong.

Jack

[Daragon36]

Armando,
That could be, but a lot of people complaining do seem to have a lack of understanding when it comes to such things. Never tried 23andMe, and from everything I've read about them makes me never want to. I can't really complain about Ancestry, only thing is they are missing some useful tools like Chromosome browsers and such. I do currently have a test that is processing over at Living DNA.
The thing is, Ethnicity tests are more of a novelty than they are for accuracy. No one should have the expectation of ethnicity results being accurate. There is an excellent post on DNA Explained about it.

[EraliaRose]

Maybe for you it is accurate; but for me it is not and I disagree with your post.

All the other tests are pretty consistent and similar and makes sense the way they explain things, this one does not. I get a lot of different traces no other tests give me and doesn't give me certain results I should get. I also lowered my European a bit and inflated some results a lot.

The majority of my records point to England, Spain and Native American. Yet here unlike all the other tests and records, I got no Iberian; but Southeast Europe for some reason. Gotten more Scandinavian and a lot lot of Europe West while my Great Britain dropped a lot. Doesn't match records or other tests.

[Scott Ritchie]

My origins 2.0 Not better!

Maybe for you it is accurate; but for me it is not and I disagree with your post.

All the other tests are pretty consistent and similar and makes sense the way they explain things, this one does not. I get a lot of different traces no other tests give me and doesn't give me certain results I should get. I also lowered my European a bit and inflated some results a lot.

The majority of my records point to England, Spain and Native American. Yet here unlike all the other tests and records, I got no Iberian; but Southeast Europe for some reason. Gotten more Scandinavian and a lot lot of Europe West while my Great Britain dropped a lot. Doesn't match records or other tests.

I totally agree, I received no Iberian and I have ancestry directly from there.
I could not get FT to answer the question as to why it disappeared. My closest
match on family finder has a last name that is Spanish, and one of the sir names from my family on my fathers side? But still received 0% Iberian.

[MichaelWilbanks]

Your results barely changed between My Origins 1 and My Origins 2. I went from no Scandinavian to 55% Scandinavian.

[Brennus]

Do they have any plans to fix or address these issues?

[John McCoy]

From experience, I don't expect any "fixes", but at some point in the future, another version of MyOrigins will be rolled out and we will all be amazed that the results are, again, different from all previous versions. In some ways this is all groping around in the dark, because there doesn't seem to be an independent way to test the results.

[willy]

My origins 2.0 is completely wrong

I totally agree, I received no Iberian and I have ancestry directly from there.
I could not get FT to answer the question as to why it disappeared. My closest
match on family finder has a last name that is Spanish, and one of the sir names from my family on my fathers side? But still received 0% Iberian.

[Frank Kelch]

My Origins 2.0 results didn't really change that much (my Scandinavian did go from 36% to 51%), but my mother's results changed dramatically. And yes, they currently make a lot more sense than they did before.

[Armando]

From experience, I don't expect any "fixes", but at some point in the future, another version of MyOrigins will be rolled out and we will all be amazed that the results are, again, different from all previous versions. In some ways this is all groping around in the dark, because there doesn't seem to be an independent way to test the results.

There is. Find a lot of family groups and compare the results of the children with the results of the parents. If any of the children are completely missing components that the parents have in abundance and/or a child gets a component at a much larger amount than exists in the parents then there is a problem with the calculator. Guess what. That has already been shown to be happening with myOrigins 2.0 at a higher rate than is acceptable.

[Armando]

My Origins 2.0 results didn't really change that much (my Scandinavian did go from 36% to 51%), but my mother's results changed dramatically. And yes, they currently make a lot more sense than they did before.

That is not surprising for even 70-80% of the customers. Having a lot of customers with good results doesn't prove that the calculator is good. Even if only 20-30% of the people have results that don't make sense it is still way too many. When a substantial number of people that really do have a significant amount of DNA from specific ethnicity, proven by results from the parents and from other companies, that is targeted by the calculator but get 0% there is a big problem with the calculator.

[Armando]

Armando,
That could be, but a lot of people complaining do seem to have a lack of understanding when it comes to such things.

The important thing is to look at the posts or results of the people that have been involved with DNA testing for a long time, have a very good understanding of it, and have a lot of family members tested and there are plenty of people like that with complaints about the myOrigins 2.0 results.

Never tried 23andMe, and from everything I've read about them makes me never want to.

The complaints aren't about the ethnicity results and that is the subject we are discussing.

I can't really complain about Ancestry, only thing is they are missing some useful tools like Chromosome browsers and such.

Just as an example, the ethnicity results give too much Iberian to northern Europeans. The tools are tangential to the topic of the ethnicity calculators.

I do currently have a test that is processing over at Living DNA.

That has shown to be a good test so far but still in development and still not enough test results have been posted or parent-child groups compared.

The thing is, Ethnicity tests are more of a novelty than they are for accuracy. No one should have the expectation of ethnicity results being accurate. There is an excellent post on DNA Explained about it.

Expectations should be based on what has been accomplished. The failure rate of myOrigins is much greater than the failure rate of 23andme which is so transparent that they post the failure rate of each ethnicity on a web page that is open to everyone. The posts by people that have tested at 23andme show a close match to what that page shows. So my expectation is for myOrigins to show something much closer to what 23andme shows for people especially since 23andme has a calculator that has the highest rate of more closely matching genealogical trees than any of the calculators except maybe LivingDNA. As for the DNA results of Roberta Estes her 23andme and myOrigins results are close to each other so her myOrigins results are about as good as can be expected. However, as I have stated before. The problem isn't that myOrigins 2.0 is incorrect for everyone because it isn't. It is incorrect for about 20-30% of the customers which is too high of a percentage.