Big Y700

Any discussions regarding y-DNA markers, results or questions.

Posts: 3139
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 7:08 am
Location: Pisa (Italy)
YDNA:
R- Z2110 (KV7Y2)
MtDNA:
K1a1b1e/HQ176413
PostPosted: Thu Jul 04, 2019 11:50 am
dartraighe wrote:A thread at FTDNA; How do we interpret SNPs that show in a 'more' window on the Haplotree & SNPs page?

>FTDNA's new block tree shows all YSNPs from the Big Y tests except for the unnamed variants. The YSNPs are shown in blocks now whereas in the old tree one had to click on "more" to see all of their YSNPs. The block tree is better because some posters were confused about it. Although the block tree shows the YSNPs within the block in a sequence it is not correct. FTDNA cannot determine which YSNP came first and which came last. If a tester can't find matches who can break down the YSNP blocks then there is no way of ever knowing the correct order. It means that all descendants were from one small family with single line of descent and the result of a bottleneck. The Y-tree is full of them. FTDNA's block tree shows the estimated number of SNP generations in the left column. An SNP generation could be anywhere from 90-120 years according to some experts.


Of course, but the low reliability of the Big Y remains, and it seems also of the Big Y 700. See what Ted Kandell (not a friend of mine) wrote on the YFull page of FB: very good also Dante's lab, mediocre also Big Y 700. Your line has only 6 private SNPs in the Big Y Block tree... Thus 540/720 years as FTDNA, whereas YFull gives you at least the double.

Posts: 3262
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:43 pm

MtDNA:
U5b2b
PostPosted: Thu Jul 04, 2019 6:52 pm
Gioiello wrote:
dartraighe wrote:A thread at FTDNA; How do we interpret SNPs that show in a 'more' window on the Haplotree & SNPs page?

>FTDNA's new block tree shows all YSNPs from the Big Y tests except for the unnamed variants. The YSNPs are shown in blocks now whereas in the old tree one had to click on "more" to see all of their YSNPs. The block tree is better because some posters were confused about it. Although the block tree shows the YSNPs within the block in a sequence it is not correct. FTDNA cannot determine which YSNP came first and which came last. If a tester can't find matches who can break down the YSNP blocks then there is no way of ever knowing the correct order. It means that all descendants were from one small family with single line of descent and the result of a bottleneck. The Y-tree is full of them. FTDNA's block tree shows the estimated number of SNP generations in the left column. An SNP generation could be anywhere from 90-120 years according to some experts.


Of course, but the low reliability of the Big Y remains, and it seems also of the Big Y 700. See what Ted Kandell (not a friend of mine) wrote on the YFull page of FB: very good also Dante's lab, mediocre also Big Y 700. Your line has only 6 private SNPs in the Big Y Block tree... Thus 540/720 years as FTDNA, whereas YFull gives you at least the double.


Gio, FTDNA has made an error in my part of the Y tree. I have 21 private variants at present. You can't see all of them. They are in my results. Nine of the YSNPs shown in the block tree I share only with my son. I am still waiting for my Y-700 BAM file and Yfull will sort it for me.

Posts: 3262
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:43 pm

MtDNA:
U5b2b
PostPosted: Sat Jul 06, 2019 7:55 am
Yfull does not get the TMRCA's correct for each branch because they are making a decision based on the number of YSNPs from each individual test and dividing the number of YSNPs by the number of testers. The definitive age of any branch does not change because one tester gets 30 YSNPs and another gets 15 YSNPs.

FTDNA's Y block tree is absolutely wrong with the number of variants. You cannot make a comparison between two different tests, Y-700 and Y-500. The tests must be the exact same. And you cannot compare two testers YSTRs unless those two testers have the exact same markers tested.

Posts: 3139
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 7:08 am
Location: Pisa (Italy)
YDNA:
R- Z2110 (KV7Y2)
MtDNA:
K1a1b1e/HQ176413
PostPosted: Sat Jul 06, 2019 8:22 am
dartraighe wrote:Yfull does not get the TMRCA's correct for each branch because they are making a decision based on the number of YSNPs from each individual test and dividing the number of YSNPs by the number of testers. The definitive age of any branch does not change because one tester gets 30 YSNPs and another gets 15 YSNPs.

FTDNA's Y block tree is absolutely wrong with the number of variants. You cannot make a comparison between two different tests, Y-700 and Y-500. The tests must be the exact same. And you cannot compare two testers YSTRs unless those two testers have the exact same markers tested.


Of course you are right about that: only the same SNPs tested may be compared, and it is what YFull does, and could do me too if I had access to the U106 group, what I haven't... for that I am against the administrators all linked to FTDNA also at YFull, but I do all what is necessary, look at my last posts about some posts on "Eurogenes blog": someone begins to admit that there was an Italian Refugium of mt U2 etc, thus of K1 etc, and all the rest. If I had access to all the data they have to, no matter for everyone.

Posts: 3262
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:43 pm

MtDNA:
U5b2b
PostPosted: Sat Jul 06, 2019 1:23 pm
Gioiello wrote:
dartraighe wrote:Yfull does not get the TMRCA's correct for each branch because they are making a decision based on the number of YSNPs from each individual test and dividing the number of YSNPs by the number of testers. The definitive age of any branch does not change because one tester gets 30 YSNPs and another gets 15 YSNPs.

FTDNA's Y block tree is absolutely wrong with the number of variants. You cannot make a comparison between two different tests, Y-700 and Y-500. The tests must be the exact same. And you cannot compare two testers YSTRs unless those two testers have the exact same markers tested.


Of course you are right about that: only the same SNPs tested may be compared, and it is what YFull does, and could do me too if I had access to the U106 group, what I haven't... for that I am against the administrators all linked to FTDNA also at YFull, but I do all what is necessary, look at my last posts about some posts on "Eurogenes blog": someone begins to admit that there was an Italian Refugium of mt U2 etc, thus of K1 etc, and all the rest. If I had access to all the data they have to, no matter for everyone.


Gioiello
I have three significant markers within the FTDNA 67 marker test that defines my branch that is estimated to be 1,300 years old. There could be lots of testers with those markers at FTDNA but I cannot access them. I am quite sure that I am not the only tester in the same position. Why aren't the admins who are close to FTDNA not a pushing FTDNA for a resolution? Even if FTDNA lowered the threshold for 67 makers it would not really help because the tester may not respond to any emails from a match. FTDNA could employ someone who is clever enough to sort out the different branches to a certain degree and then give the predicted status to each tester who paid for a 67 or 111 marker test. That might encourage the new tester to look up the predicted branch that he was assigned and to take a YSNP test to verify the status.

Posts: 3262
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:43 pm

MtDNA:
U5b2b
PostPosted: Mon Jul 08, 2019 6:14 am
One expert that I wrote to says.

" Family Tree DNA has opted to set a single threshold for Y-STR and Y-SNP results, to create a one-size-fits-all criterion that achieves this balance. There are various reasons that this is a good idea. One of them is that, if you go to relationships much broader than 7/67, then you start to pull in a lot of people from all over R-M269."

"Employing someone to perform haplogroup prediction isn't going to happen. That's not a job to be done manually - it's just not cost-effective. It's much better to automate it, and that can be done. FTDNA tried it before, it was a disaster, and they ended up going back to the old predictions that stopped at R-M269. The trouble for FTDNA is that they won't predict a haplogroups unless it's very highly certain: since people take Y-SNP packs based on these haplogroups, if they get it wrong, their policy is that they have to cover the cost of a new pack themselves. So it's not in their commercial interests under their current policies to do this."


But that is no benefit to me and a lot of other testers. FTDNA could have as many as 900,000 YSTR testers in their database but only a small percentage has actually YSNP tested. A lot of testers who match me at 25 markers and who are YSTR tested to 67, but don't match me at 67, could be in my subclade. I have found some in the projects but by the time I learned of them they had quit dna testing. They would not reply to my emails. And not every tester joins a project.

FTDNA needs to find a solution because a lot of testers are complaining about the lack of matches, YSTR and YSNP. FTDNA has promised customers to break down the brick walls through dna testing but have not delivered for a lot of customers. FTDNA's 30 YSNP threshold is pointless due to the number of YSNPs that are being found in Y-700. I have lost two of only three Big Y matches. FTDNA's threshold should be based on TMRCA not YSNPs. FTDNA needs to do something positive about YSNP testing because the true relationship can be only established through YSNP testing.

I wrote to one of my new 25 marker matches, with a similar surname, who had tested to 67 markers and asked him for his result for DYS492. He was good enough to reply and now I know that we are not related within the past 5,000 years. A lot of YSTR matches will not reply to emails.

Posts: 3262
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:43 pm

MtDNA:
U5b2b
PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2019 10:07 am
"Thank you for contacting FTDNA. Your Y-DNA STR test is designed to find people related to you within the last 25 generations. The matching cut off of 7 mismatches out of 67 tested markers is designed to find relevant matches for you in that timeframe."

"I'm sorry, we cannot report someone as a match to you if they share fewer markers in common than the required threshold. Doing so would significantly alter the scope of the test and the level of matching that our existing customers agreed to share their contact information with. Many of our customers already disable their most distant matches within the last 25 generations. It is unlikely that they would like to share their contact information with individuals that are even more distantly related than that."


This response that I got from FTDNA is just not good enough in relation to my dna matches. I have only one 60/67 marker YSTR match since 2006. A lot of YSTR 60/67 marker matches are not within the 25 generation threshold unless they are two testers with the exact same surname perhaps. A lot of testers who match within the 60/67 marker threshold will need YSNP tests to determine the real relationship. The one 60/67 match that I have is not related to me within the past 43 generations which was determined only by extensive YSNP tests.

YSTR tests were okay 13 years ago but we now have NGS tests which are the real deal if one wants to learn about their YDNA ancestors. One does not need YSTR tests to determine who their recent cousins are. They should know that their cousins within the past 10-25 generations will have most of their YSNPs and YSTRs. If one really wants to learn about their real ancestral history then NGS tests are the way to go, but they are expensive at present.

FTDNA has thousands of YSTR testers in their database but they are a waste of time "resting on their laurels" without taking part in YSNP tests. Eventually they will get tired of waiting on a match to show up and then they will just give up. There is not enough info given to newbies by FTDNA when they buy a YSTR test about the limitations of the test.

For R1b testers, a U106, P312 or S1200 status would be a lot more informative for a newbie than M269. It would not be beyond the scientists at FTDNA to give such a prediction.

Posts: 3262
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:43 pm

MtDNA:
U5b2b
PostPosted: Mon Jul 22, 2019 11:44 am
On FTDNA's YDNA product page is this ad below. A Y-67 marker test at $268 will not help any customer to follow his ancestral path. NGS tests are the only tests that might just help a customer to learn about his ancestral path, as long as he can find enough YSNP matches. And a customer might need 100 matches to be of any benefit. FTDNA has a huge database of YSTR testers who are asleep. To learn about ancestral paths each and every YDNA tester needs to be YSNP tested.

YSTR 67 marker tests are great for the LEA's but will not help any customer to find his ancestral origins beyond 300 years similar to a FF test. FTDNA's threshold for 67 markers is designed for testers within a genealogical time frame. And seemingly FTDNA are not one bit interested in encouraging customers to YSNP test.

I think that most YDNA customers are keen to learn about their ancestral origins not their close relatives. We know that they have the same YDNA profiles as we do. YDNA testers who are really interested in their ancestral origins need more companies to provide YSNP tests only and at the right price. That is the bets way to go.



"TRACE YOUR PATERNAL MIGRATION
Follow the path of your
male ancestors
Males can use Y-DNA to determine where their direct paternal ancestors came from, their locations in historic times and how they migrated throughout the world.
Explore your direct paternal line and geographic origins
Uncover your paternal heritage going back to Africa
Trace your male ancestors' ancient migration paths"

Posts: 3262
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:43 pm

MtDNA:
U5b2b
PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2019 10:20 am
dartraighe wrote:On FTDNA's YDNA product page is this ad below. A Y-67 marker test at $268 will not help any customer to follow his ancestral path. NGS tests are the only tests that might just help a customer to learn about his ancestral path, as long as he can find enough YSNP matches. And a customer might need 100 matches to be of any benefit. FTDNA has a huge database of YSTR testers who are asleep. To learn about ancestral paths each and every YDNA tester needs to be YSNP tested.

YSTR 67 marker tests are great for the LEA's but will not help any customer to find his ancestral origins beyond 300 years similar to a FF test. FTDNA's threshold for 67 markers is designed for testers within a genealogical time frame. And seemingly FTDNA are not one bit interested in encouraging customers to YSNP test.

I think that most YDNA customers are keen to learn about their ancestral origins not their close relatives. We know that they have the same YDNA profiles as we do. YDNA testers who are really interested in their ancestral origins need more companies to provide YSNP tests only and at the right price. That is the bets way to go.



"TRACE YOUR PATERNAL MIGRATION
Follow the path of your
male ancestors
Males can use Y-DNA to determine where their direct paternal ancestors came from, their locations in historic times and how they migrated throughout the world.
Explore your direct paternal line and geographic origins
Uncover your paternal heritage going back to Africa
Trace your male ancestors' ancient migration paths"



Family Tree DNA doesn't predict anyone more closely than R-M269. There was an attempt to provide more recent haplogroup prediction a few years ago, which went horribly wrong. Haplogroup prediction is a very difficult thing to do, and even more difficult to do accurately.

I think that 95% of testers with 67 markers and who have 13 @ DYS492 belong to U106. FTDNA could give predicted status U106 to anyone with this marker value instead of M269. That would be a good start.

FTDNA must have around 900,000 ydna customers looking at the most recent ID numbers of new testers. At least 40% of those YDNA testers are R1b and 25% of R1b are U106 according to some experts. FTDNA has around 50,000 customers with Big Y tests but the vast majority have no YSNP status which is bad news for us that are interested in ancestral origins . FTDNA needs to up their game and fulfil the promise to their customers of breaking down the brick walls. Under the current system that is not going to happen for the majority of ydna testers.

Posts: 3262
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:43 pm

MtDNA:
U5b2b
PostPosted: Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:43 pm
Gioiello wrote:
dartraighe wrote:A thread at FTDNA; How do we interpret SNPs that show in a 'more' window on the Haplotree & SNPs page?

>FTDNA's new block tree shows all YSNPs from the Big Y tests except for the unnamed variants. The YSNPs are shown in blocks now whereas in the old tree one had to click on "more" to see all of their YSNPs. The block tree is better because some posters were confused about it. Although the block tree shows the YSNPs within the block in a sequence it is not correct. FTDNA cannot determine which YSNP came first and which came last. If a tester can't find matches who can break down the YSNP blocks then there is no way of ever knowing the correct order. It means that all descendants were from one small family with single line of descent and the result of a bottleneck. The Y-tree is full of them. FTDNA's block tree shows the estimated number of SNP generations in the left column. An SNP generation could be anywhere from 90-120 years according to some experts.


Of course, but the low reliability of the Big Y remains, and it seems also of the Big Y 700. See what Ted Kandell (not a friend of mine) wrote on the YFull page of FB: very good also Dante's lab, mediocre also Big Y 700. Your line has only 6 private SNPs in the Big Y Block tree... Thus 540/720 years as FTDNA, whereas YFull gives you at least the double.


Gio
Yfull has looked at my BAM file and I have 17 new private variants, three are low quality from my Big Y-700. I am happy enough with the results but without some new YSNP matches I am hammered!
PreviousNext

Return to y-DNA Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron