PDA

View Full Version : Living DNA update



Xtian
05-30-2017, 09:31 AM
So, it's nearly June and so far no update to cautious, complete or most importantly, the ability to download results.

Anyone with any information?

05-30-2017, 09:34 AM
No info..

timberwolf
05-30-2017, 09:42 AM
I received this reply from Living DNA on April 28th

Thank you for your enquiry.

Caution and Complete modes are going to be available in 2 - 3 months.

ollie444
05-30-2017, 09:52 AM
I'm hoping we're looking at the end of June for the Irish project, that's certainly what I was told for raw DNA downloads. I assume the complete/cautious modes will be at the same time as the Irish update.
16392

FionnSneachta
05-30-2017, 02:40 PM
I know that no one seems to be too interested in this but is there any word on if Neanderthal DNA is still being introduced. I remember when I did the survey to see if I qualified for the Irish DNA project that the website claimed that Neanderthal percentages would be introduced in January or early 2017 which obviously didn't happen. Has this been abandoned, delayed or postponed until after more DNA projects have been carried out? Does anyone know anything about this?

ollie444
05-30-2017, 03:37 PM
I know that no one seems to be too interested in this but is there any word on if Neanderthal DNA is still being introduced. I remember when I did the survey to see if I qualified for the Irish DNA project that the website claimed that Neanderthal percentages would be introduced in January or early 2017 which obviously didn't happen. Has this been abandoned, delayed or postponed until after more DNA projects have been carried out? Does anyone know anything about this?


I've no idea, but I'm definitely interested in this!

greerpalmer
06-09-2017, 10:04 PM
I'm hoping we're looking at the end of June for the Irish project, that's certainly what I was told for raw DNA downloads. I assume the complete/cautious modes will be at the same time as the Irish update.
16392

I was told that results from the Ireland/German projects would take 2-5 years to yield useful results. Obviously the German project is just starting, but I interpreted that as 2 years for Ireland, 5 for Germany.

sktibo
06-10-2017, 01:22 AM
they're working on going through everybody's results and making sure they're good (no incorrect calls) after that they're going to release the complete and cautious modes

Ron from PA
06-10-2017, 02:48 AM
I was told that results from the Ireland/German projects would take 2-5 years to yield useful results. Obviously the German project is just starting, but I interpreted that as 2 years for Ireland, 5 for Germany.

Ugh. Until they work in the German my results are pretty much useless.

ollie444
06-10-2017, 10:35 AM
I was told that results from the Ireland/German projects would take 2-5 years to yield useful results. Obviously the German project is just starting, but I interpreted that as 2 years for Ireland, 5 for Germany.

Not what I've heard: https://cruwys.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/a-dna-day-sale-at-living-dna-and-news.html

JMcB
06-10-2017, 02:50 PM
I think it's safe to say, that LDNA's various ETA's aren't very reliable. If I remember correctly, we were told during the WDYTYA conference that the complete & cautious modes were imminent. And all this time later, here we are ....

ollie444
06-10-2017, 03:02 PM
I think it's safe to say, that LDNA's various ETA's aren't very reliable. If I remember correctly, we were told during the WDYTYA conference that the complete & cautious modes were imminent. And all this time later, here we are ....

I believe February was the first date we were given...

The problem is that they have to tweak all our test results first, before they can release the updates.

simdadams
06-10-2017, 03:19 PM
speaking from working on IT Projects most of my working life the amount of delay on target dates seem pretty normal to good, most project miss theirs or never finish or use the good old de-scope everything so we can finish.

Amerijoe
06-10-2017, 04:37 PM
Just left site was able to download my data.

JMcB
06-10-2017, 05:05 PM
I believe February was the first date we were given...

The problem is that they have to tweak all our test results first, before they can release the updates.

I'll certainly give them the February ETA because they had their chip problem soon thereafter. Unfortunately, their communications skills have been less than salutary and they don't engender a lot of confidence. The WDYTYA conference was 2 months ago and we're long past the point of imminent release. So an update should have been forthcoming weeks ago.

So when it comes to modes, you can put me in the: "l'll believe it, when I see it" mode.

deadly77
06-10-2017, 05:07 PM
Just left site was able to download my data.

I just tried mine and it said "Coming Soon... This feature is currently being finalised. Please check back shortly."

But thanks for sharing that you were able to download yours. Probably means they're rolling it out in stages, so hopefully soon.

ollie444
06-10-2017, 06:04 PM
Just left site was able to download my data.

Have you had your results changed though?

ajc347
06-10-2017, 06:29 PM
I've been able to download my raw data and I haven't had any results changed.

I was hoping for a list of negative and positive SNP values (in the same way YSEQ report them) so I could work out which SNP's they had tested for. Unfortunately, the list only appears to show positive SNP results.

The mtDNA data is sparse (consisting of a 9 marker list) and the autosomal data is reported as a plain text file (which I can't make much sense of - I was hoping for a file that I could run through GEDmatch in the same way as my FTDNA raw data file).

All in all, it's been a pretty disappointing download. :(

MacUalraig
06-10-2017, 06:46 PM
I've been able to download my raw data and I haven't had any results changed.

I was hoping for a list of negative and positive SNP values (in the same way YSEQ report them) so I could work out which SNP's they had tested for. Unfortunately, the list only appears to show positive SNP results.

The mtDNA data is sparse (consisting of a 9 marker list) and the autosomal data is reported as a plain text file (which I can't make much sense of - I was hoping for a file that I could run through GEDmatch in the same way as my FTDNA raw data file).

All in all, it's been a pretty disappointing download. :(

Absolutely, we want the full Y SNP list with all calls! Then we know how much use it is for others (in different haplogroups) and can advise accordingly.

Amerijoe
06-10-2017, 07:11 PM
Have you had your results changed though?

Results have not changed.

ollie444
06-10-2017, 07:15 PM
I've been able to download my raw data and I haven't had any results changed.

I was hoping for a list of negative and positive SNP values (in the same way YSEQ report them) so I could work out which SNP's they had tested for. Unfortunately, the list only appears to show positive SNP results.

The mtDNA data is sparse (consisting of a 9 marker list) and the autosomal data is reported as a plain text file (which I can't make much sense of - I was hoping for a file that I could run through GEDmatch in the same way as my FTDNA raw data file).

All in all, it's been a pretty disappointing download. :(

My raw ancestry dna is a text file, are you sure you can't upload to gedmatch?

Ricimer
06-10-2017, 07:19 PM
My data is downabled too although in vcf format

ajc347
06-10-2017, 07:40 PM
My raw ancestry dna is a text file, are you sure you can't upload to gedmatch?

I've tried to upload it and, unfortunately, GEDmatch gives the following error code:

ERROR: Line segmentation count = 11
Each line of data in your file must consist of 4 or 5 columns

ollie444
06-10-2017, 07:45 PM
I've tried to upload it and, unfortunately, GEDmatch gives the following error code:

ERROR: Line segmentation count = 11
Each line of data in your file must consist of 4 or 5 columns

I'm sure they'll accommodate it eventually.

sktibo
06-10-2017, 07:52 PM
OH my God they actually updated it!? You can download your raw data now. I don't believe it. I'm still with JMcB in that I'll "Believe it when I see it" for the new modes but this is promising.

timberwolf
06-10-2017, 09:13 PM
I'm signed into my account and no results are being displayed, nothing. Is anyone else having that problem?

Maybe updates are currently being loaded?

sktibo
06-10-2017, 09:42 PM
I'm signed into my account and no results are being displayed, nothing. Is anyone else having that problem?

Maybe updates are currently being loaded?

No, there's not an update - it's updated as in you can now download your results. I use that word a bit too liberally.
Not having that problem myself, maybe they're verifying your results or something?

MacEochaidh
06-11-2017, 02:23 AM
I'm signed into my account and no results are being displayed, nothing. Is anyone else having that problem?

Maybe updates are currently being loaded?

I've had that happen to me two times since I first received results on 5/23/17. Each time it came back with new updated results. The first time it was down for about 24 hours the second time only a few hours.

jortita
06-11-2017, 02:31 AM
Successfully uploaded my downloaded autosomal DNA file on Gedmatch Genesis Beta site

sktibo
06-11-2017, 02:33 AM
Successfully uploaded my downloaded autosomal DNA file on Gedmatch Genesis Beta site

Nice! have you given it a trial run yet?

jortita
06-11-2017, 02:36 AM
Nice! have you given it a trial run yet?

Not as yet, Gedmatch Genesis you cannot run ancestry calculators

sktibo
06-11-2017, 02:46 AM
Not as yet, Gedmatch Genesis you cannot run ancestry calculators

Darn. What can you do with it?

Xtian
06-12-2017, 07:39 PM
anyway to make the VCF file work with Gedmatch or DNAland?

ajc347
06-12-2017, 08:21 PM
anyway to make the VCF file work with Gedmatch or DNAland?

You can load the vcf file up onto the GEDmatch Genesis beta page.

timberwolf
06-12-2017, 09:46 PM
I made an enquiry. In regards of when the Irish project results may become available.

Thank you very much for your email.

Unfortunately we cannot say with any certainty at this point in time, when the Irish DNA Project will be completed and updated to customers as this partly depends on how quickly we can collect sufficient high-quality data for it.

So the wait continues.

FionnSneachta
06-12-2017, 10:51 PM
I made an enquiry. In regards of when the Irish project results may become available.

Thank you very much for your email.

Unfortunately we cannot say with any certainty at this point in time, when the Irish DNA Project will be completed and updated to customers as this partly depends on how quickly we can collect sufficient high-quality data for it.

So the wait continues.

I'd love to know which areas they're lacking samples in, the numbers of samples collected for each region and the target for each region. At least that might give an indication as to whether they're anywhere near their targets. I remember back in December they were looking for more people in North Munster, Leinster and Ulster which is most of Ireland really. Hopefully it's improved since then at least.

sktibo
06-13-2017, 12:37 AM
I made an enquiry. In regards of when the Irish project results may become available.

Thank you very much for your email.

Unfortunately we cannot say with any certainty at this point in time, when the Irish DNA Project will be completed and updated to customers as this partly depends on how quickly we can collect sufficient high-quality data for it.

So the wait continues.

I'm not expecting to get this update anytime soon. I kinda wish in the meantime they'd add the samples they have under their overall Ireland category because at seven samples it's currently ridiculous.
thanks for checking in timberwolf

sktibo
06-13-2017, 07:35 PM
I asked Living DNA if they were planning on making their raw data uploadable to regular Gedmatch instead of just the Genesis beta:

"We're currently working with GedMatch on this, and it should be happening very soon. Thanks, ^AG"

timberwolf
06-13-2017, 10:04 PM
Mind you what does "very soon' mean in the terms of Living DNA's previous record of not meeting the time frames that they state.

Call me a cynic.

sktibo
06-14-2017, 02:07 AM
Mind you what does "very soon' mean in the terms of Living DNA's previous record of not meeting the time frames that they state.

Call me a cynic.

haha, yep!

Pylsteen
06-14-2017, 10:48 AM
Gedmatch would be interesting; I have uploaded to genesis; no matches at the moment; also: what can I do right now with genesis?

timberwolf
06-19-2017, 02:20 AM
From LDNA Blog
18/6/2017

New Feature: Your family DNA Views
Post date: 18th June 2017
We’re pleased to announce that Living DNA users will be able to start to explore their family ancestry (Autosomal DNA) in three different ways over the next couple of days.

We call this feature “views” as it allows you to look at your ethnic ancestry mix within different confidence ranges; Complete, Standard and Cautious.

For users who would have already received their results, they received their “Standard” view which may contain some unassigned ancestry. But now, by looking at the complete view, customers can see these unassigned areas. We’ve also added in a ‘cautions’ view which combines regions of genetically similar ancestry, providing our highest degree of certainty.

In the process of releasing views, we’ve made some small changes to our algorithms; this means that peoples results will be slightly updated, normally by around 1%, although a small number of customers may see much bigger changes in their mix.

To Explore Views In Depth:

There are now three different ways which you can view your autosomal genetic makeup:

The Cautious View:

Cautious View 1
Cautious View 2
In this view, we have grouped genetically similar populations together, where we are most certain about the assignments of your ancestry breakdown. Where we have grouped population regions, it demonstrates the similarity of the genetic makeup of individuals in that one particular area and therefore we can be most confident that your said ancestry is within these boundaries.

These “confidence groups” and are carefully chosen so that we can say we are confident you have ancestors from at least one of the populations listed in this view due to similar DNA in grouped regions. These confident groups will consist of different levels of spread across the world and can be made up of 2 (small), 3 (medium) or 4 (large) similar regions.

The Standard View:

Standard View 1
Standard View 2
Here we highlight the sources of your ancestry which are likely to be present, using our best-guess of the exact source. Ancestry that cannot be attributed to one of our reference populations is shown as being 'unassigned' as we cannot be confident in assigning this to a specific population group which we assign your ancestors to currently.

Please note that some of your results on your current standard views may have changed, this will be because of a recent update to our algorithms. Further changes will be made throughout the year.

The Complete View:

Complete View 1
In complete view, we have attempted to assign all ancestry, allocating "unassigned" percentages to regions to which they look most similar to. There will be more uncertainty associated with these assignments, however, this could widen your knowledge and give you more opportunity to search for missing jigsaw pieces in your family history search.

It’s important to remember, that your results will constantly be refined as this ever-growing science evolves and updates. So regularly check your results.

Future Updates

We’ve got some exciting developments planned for later this year, keep checking our blog for the first announcement of the new Living DNA test updates.

https://www.livingdna.com/en-nz/blog/275/new-feature-your-family-dna-views

sktibo
06-19-2017, 02:45 AM
oh my god they're actually releasing them

timberwolf
06-19-2017, 05:48 AM
The cautious and complete mode is now live.

Jessie
06-19-2017, 07:09 AM
Here's my modes.

Cautious

17003

Standard

17001

Complete

17002

The Chechnya in this is interesting as my mtdna J1c3f is most common in Ossetia and also my one step matches are to the Russian Federation and Norway.

jortita
06-19-2017, 07:27 AM
My modes, complete looks the most off in terms of my ancestry, orkney island is strange 170041700517006

Jessie
06-19-2017, 07:35 AM
My modes, complete looks the most off in terms of my ancestry, orkney island is strange 170041700517006

No stranger than me getting Pashtun jortita. :)

jortita
06-19-2017, 07:43 AM
No stranger than me getting Pashtun jortita. :)

I hope they improve with further updates

Jessie
06-19-2017, 07:57 AM
Skitbo - A bugbear of my is the blurb on Ireland in this summary. Could you or anyone in contact with LivingDNA tell them their information is very much out-of-date regards Ireland. Even us novices know that Ireland was mostly impacted by the Bell Beakers and does not have a different genetic history than Britain.

Southwest Scotland-related ancestry





This is a confidence group for Southwest Scotland ancestry with large spread. It includes Southwest Scotland, Northwest Scotland, Northumbria and Ireland populations. As it is the largest possible grouping for Southwest Scotland and surrounding ancestry, you will likely be assigned this if either your ancestry from this region is both small and uncertain, or your ancestry is large but has multiple distinct sources from the region.

To the first nomadic settlers of Britain, Northumbria (Northumberland, Tyne & Wear, and Durham counties) would have been a paradise filled with wildlife that flourished after the last ice age. To the people of the British Bronze and Iron Ages, this region was the centre of tribal confederacies that built great hill forts that still mark the landscape today. To the Romans, the area represented the border between civilisation and barbarity. For the Anglo Saxons, this was the heart of a powerful northern kingdom, one of the few that resisted the Viking onslaught with some measure of success. Throughout history, Northumbria has meant many things to many people, and its unique story has resulted in a unique genetic signature that can be detected within the region today.

This land is defined by its geography. The many forts and castles that made Northumbria so defensible are often based around the rocky outcrops and hills common to the region. Perhaps this is why the area often successfully stood against invasion from tribesmen, Vikings, and Scots. This is also a land defined by its coast. The region has never been isolated, and for millennia people have settled here from across distant shores to trade, farm, and sometimes to conquer. Northumbria may lie in the extreme north of England, but its regional heritage has been very much rooted in its European connections since ancient times.

The genetic signature of the north west of Scotland is as exciting as its colourful history. The signature covers from Argyll to the Highlands and everything in between. This area has been changed throughout the years by migrations and kingdoms, and has a reputation for its independent, warlike tribes - the ‘Picts’. To the Romans, these tribal people were called ‘painted ones’. Unlike the overly literal portrayal from the film ‘Braveheart’, they were probably not covered in blue paint, but were actually heavily tattooed across the face and body. It is thought that the genetic signature today is influenced by the Kingdom of the Picts - the original tattoo artists of Scotland.

The signature is influenced by Irish migrations, and has Irish roots to this day. In 550 AD, the Kingdom of the Dalriada spread from Northern Ireland across into North West Scotland. It was thought to be more of a cohesive introduction than a full blown, violent invasion. Remarkably, the genetic signature for North West Scotland closely matches the boundaries of this kingdom, showing the extent of an Irish genetic legacy. The Romans called these people ‘Scotti’ which ultimately led to the creation of Scotland's name. The Irish legacy has therefore created the name of Scotland, as well as influencing the Gaelic language and genetic heritage.

A common misconception of Ireland's history is that it is based on one solidified “Celtic” group, who are all connected by genetics, culture and customs. However, when you delve deep into Ireland’s past, the story is much different - it is far more complex and no doubt more interesting. Ireland is genetically unique, having a different genetic signature to Britain despite its close proximity. The most ancient populations of Ireland appear to be very similar to those of Britain, yet future migrations are considerably different. Farming populations appear to have migrated into Ireland (most likely from Spain) on a huge scale, intermingling with the hunter gatherers of the country. Although there are many subsequent migrations into Ireland, it is likely that the Spanish farmers are responsible for a significant genetic change to the Irish population.

Ireland was unaffected by the Romans and Anglo Saxons who invaded and settled neighbouring Britain, but did feel the undesired impact of the Vikings from Scandinavia. Ireland has often been seen as having Viking ancestry in the past, but research suggests the genetic impact may be much smaller than the substantial cultural influences that resulted from the settlements and raids of the Vikings from 795 AD.



There is a shared genetic signature for the areas now known as Northern Ireland and the southwest of Scotland, including Dumfries and Galloway. The areas are divided by a watery barrier, yet historical migrations across the sea have led to a shared genetic legacy between them. The origins of the first settlers in these two areas highlight the beginning of their shared past - migrations of people from Europe travelled into Scotland, and then into Ireland across the sea. This formed the basis for a connected genetic signature. Both Ireland and Scotland are seen as places of Celtic legend, encompassing a tribal genetic legacy and history. However, there is no evidence for there being one huge tribe that were connected through genetics, thus the idea that there was one solidified Celtic group is now considered a myth.

The genetic signature has a quality that is unusual in the British Isles - it is likely to be largely influenced by a relatively recent event in the 1600s. This event is known as the Ulster Plantation, which saw thousands of Scottish people being placed into Northern Ireland by King James. Not only did this influence language and religion to this day, but the DNA of the Scottish and Irish was intermixed. Natural movements of people across the sea is also notable, both before and after the Plantation of Ulster.





Citations
• BBC History (2014) Native Tribes of Britain
• English Monarchs (2016) The Kingdom of Rheged
• Hetherington, P. (2003) Prehistoric settlements found under North sea
• Manco, J. (2015b) Celtic tribes of Southern Scotland and North-East England
• Rowe, P. (2015) Hunting the Hunter-Gatherers: Mesolithic Teesside.
• Visit Northumberland (2016a) Iron Age sites and rock art
• BBC History (2011a) Britain's Oldest House?
• BBC History (2011b) Life in an Iron Age Village
• Bede's World (2016) Bede
• Cohen, J. (2013) 10 Things You May Not Know About William the Conqueror

06-19-2017, 08:53 AM
Horrah! they have finally updated the different modes. very interesting.

Cautious Mode

17007

Complete Mode

17008

Standard Mode

17009

Pylsteen
06-19-2017, 09:39 AM
My maps:

17013

17014

17015


I am generally content; the only thing nagging me is the apparent lower East Asian than expected; it might even be 1/64 of my ancestry; reviewing my pedigree, I think that two women, which I have as "presumably native women" might actually have an European father.

ollie444
06-19-2017, 10:25 AM
The update a few days ago took away my North Yorkshire, Lincolnshire and Cornwall and gave me 14.6% unassigned. Complete mode has now put my unassigned into North Yorkshire, Lincolnshire and Cornwall... :P

06-19-2017, 10:36 AM
The update a few days ago took away my North Yorkshire, Lincolnshire and Cornwall and gave me 14.6% unassigned. Complete mode has now put my unassigned into North Yorkshire, Lincolnshire and Cornwall... :P

lol :D so now you don't feel so robbed:P

Ron from PA
06-19-2017, 12:41 PM
Interesting cautious gives me North Yorkshire related as my top at 34%. Which makes sense as I imagine most of my British comes from this area. However when my standard changed my SW Scotland went away and Aberdeen took it's place. Now in Cautious the Aberdeen is gone and under Orkney? my SW Scotland/NI is back, which is where I think my Scottish should be from. Having Aberdeen in standard, with none in cautious makes little sense to me. Just looked again in complete I do have both areas.

ollie444
06-19-2017, 01:24 PM
Interesting cautious gives me North Yorkshire related as my top at 34%. Which makes sense as I imagine most of my British comes from this area. However when my standard changed my SW Scotland went away and Aberdeen took it's place. Now in Cautious the Aberdeen is gone and under Orkney? my SW Scotland/NI is back, which is where I think my Scottish should be from. Having Aberdeen in standard, with none in cautious makes little sense to me. Just looked again in complete I do have both areas.

Roll on the Scottish project!

firemonkey
06-19-2017, 05:23 PM
Complete,Standard and cautious.



17038

17039

17040

Stephen1986
06-19-2017, 05:55 PM
Here are my original results -

17042

Global

Europe 97.6%
World (unassigned) 2.4%

Regional

Great Britain and Ireland 93.5%
Europe (unassigned) 4%

Sub-regions

NW England 26.1%
SE England 13.3%
Cumbria 9.7%
South Yorkshire 9%
South England 8.8%
East Anglia 8%
SW Scotland & Northern Ireland 5.5%
South Wales Border 2.1%
Northumbria 1.8%
Aberdeenshire 1.2%
SC England 1.2%
Orkney 1.2%
GB&I (unassigned) 5.7%

And here are my updated results -

Standard

17043

Global

Europe 98.8%
World (unassigned) 1.2%

Regional

Great Britain and Ireland 96.2%
Europe (unassigned) 2.6%
World (unassigned) 1.2%

Sub-Regional

NW England 36.1%
South England 20.6%
Cumbria 9.7%
SE England 5.5%
SW Scotland & Northern Ireland 3.3%
Aberdeenshire 2.5%
North Wales 2.2%
Northumbria 2.1%
South Wales Border 1.2%
Orkney 1.2%
GB&I (unassigned) 11.9%

Complete

Global

Europe 98.8%
Asia (South) 1.2%

Regional

Great Britain & Ireland 96.2%
Europe (South) 2.6%
Asia (South) 1.2%
Pashtun 1.2%

Sub-Regional

NW England 36.1%
South England 20.6%
Cumbria 9.7%
East Anglia 7.5%
SE England 5.5%
NW Scotland 4.4%
SW Scotland & Northern Ireland 3.3%
Aberdeenshire 2.5%
North Wales 2.2%
Northumbria 2.1%
South Wales Border 1.2%
Orkney 1.2%

Sardinia 1.5%
Tuscany 1.1%

Pashtun 1.1%

Cautious

17044

Global

Europe 98.8%
World (unassigned) 1.2%

Regional

Great Britain and Ireland 96.2%
Europe (unassigned) 2.6%

Sub-Regional

North Wales related ancestry 39.5%
South England related ancestry 26%
Cumbria related ancestry 15.1%
Orkney related ancestry 3.7%
Great Britain and Ireland (unassigned) 11.9%

firemonkey
06-19-2017, 06:36 PM
I am curious as to how the cautious mode is worked out . For Orkney, I can get near it by adding Abderdeenshire and NW Scotland. For South Yorkshire, South Yorkshire + North Yorkshire in complete mode gives me 11.6% of the 25.6%. For Devon, Cornwall and Devon in complete mode gives me 8.7% of the 16.1%.

Can anyone enlighten me?

FionnSneachta
06-19-2017, 06:39 PM
Here are mine:

Cautious mode
17050

Standard mode
17049

Complete mode
17051

Here's a comparison (to help myself to be honest)
17048

My standard results didn't change since my initial results but I've now gotten my unassigned ancestry. These are North Yorkshire 4.7% (6th highest in complete) and East Anglia which is my lowest British result. It turns out that my unassigned Europe is Scandinavia at 1.8%. This matches with my AncestryDNA results. If you look at all the regions while ignoring the percentages, they match with AncestryDNA. Now I'm just looking forward to the completion of the Irish DNA project.

ollie444
06-19-2017, 07:06 PM
I am curious as to how the cautious mode is worked out . For Orkney, I can get near it by adding Abderdeenshire and NW Scotland. For South Yorkshire, South Yorkshire + North Yorkshire in complete mode gives me 11.6% of the 25.6%. For Devon, Cornwall and Devon in complete mode gives me 8.7% of the 16.1%.

Can anyone enlighten me?

Can you post the exact regions please? There seem to be a vast amount of different cautious combinations.

ollie444
06-19-2017, 07:22 PM
My maps:

17013

17014

17015


I am generally content; the only thing nagging me is the apparent lower East Asian than expected; it might even be 1/64 of my ancestry; reviewing my pedigree, I think that two women, which I have as "presumably native women" might actually have an European father.

100/32 = 3.125 Your Asia East percentage = 4.1 % Maybe 1/32 and not 1/64? Or are you only referring to the non-Chinese bit?

firemonkey
06-19-2017, 07:26 PM
Can you post the exact regions please? There seem to be a vast amount of different cautious combinations.

I am not sure what you mean. My maps are available a few posts back.

ollie444
06-19-2017, 07:31 PM
I am not sure what you mean. My maps are available a few posts back.

Hi, you only posted the percentages not the maps. I meant what regions are included in your cautious mode related groups, or are there only the ones listed when trying to add up the percentages?

simdadams
06-19-2017, 07:33 PM
Complete
Europe 100%
Great Britain and Ireland 98.6%
South England 39.7%
Southeast England 23.2%
Devon 7.3%
Cornwall 5.8%
Aberdeenshire 4.1%
Lincolnshire 3.6%
South Central England 3.1%
South Yorkshire 3%
East Anglia 2.4%
South Wales 1.9%
Cumbria 1.8%
North Wales 1.3%
South Wales Border 1.3%
Europe (North and West) 1.4%
Scandinavia 1.4%


Standard
Europe 100%
Great Britain and Ireland 98.6%
South England 39.7%
Southeast England 23.2%
Devon 7.3%
Cornwall 5.8%
Aberdeenshire 4.1%
Lincolnshire 3.6%
South Central England 3.1%
South Yorkshire 3%
South Wales 1.9%
South Wales Border 1.3%
Great Britain and Ireland (unassigned) 5.5%
Europe (unassigned) 1.4%

Cautious
Europe 100%
Great Britain and Ireland 98.6%
South England-related ancestry 73.3%
Lincolnshire-related ancestry 6.6%
Cornwall 5.8%
Aberdeenshire-related ancestry 4.1%
South Wales-related ancestry 3.2%
Great Britain and Ireland (unassigned) 5.5%
Europe (unassigned) 1.4%

Real mongrel Brit I suppose :)

firemonkey
06-19-2017, 07:59 PM
Hi, you only posted the percentages not the maps. I meant what regions are included in your cautious mode related groups, or are there only the ones listed when trying to add up the percentages?


17056

sktibo
06-19-2017, 08:20 PM
Cautious
17057
Cautious Northumbria
17058
Mainland percentages complete
17059
World map complete
17060

OK, So Northumbria's cautious grouping has NW Scotland, Ireland, and Devon?
"This is a confidence group for Northumbria ancestry with large spread. It includes Northumbria, Northwest Scotland, Devon and Ireland populations. As it is the largest possible grouping for Northumbria and surrounding ancestry, you will likely be assigned this if either your ancestry from this region is both small and uncertain, or your ancestry is large but has multiple distinct sources from the region."
Mystery Solved I guess. Would not have thought that Northumbria would be grouped with NW Scot and Ireland.
South England cautious is also a weird mix: "This is a confidence group for South England ancestry with large spread. It includes South England, Southeast England, Devon and Southwest Scotland populations." Uhhh... and why does SW Scotland make sense for this one? I'm not sure I see the connection.
For some reason the Orkney related ancestry group looks percentagewise to include Aberdeenshire (11.5 + 1.9) = 13.4, which is my percentage for this group, yet it claims to be Orkney plus SW Scotland. Anyone else get this group and have it mixed with their Aberdeen %?

Finally, my mainland European populations are revealed: with 0% France. I did get 1.2% Iberian though, which I'm going to categorize as French. I'm going to say that Scandinavian is actually my Germanic percentage which has been mis-labeled. What I think is really cool is the 1.4% Middle Eastern / Kurdish percentage, perhaps that is related to my maternal line which I think is found in the Middle East in high frequencies. Interesting that it picked up my German and Eastern European ancestry but not my French.

17061
And complete mode British Isles. only had 3.7% unassigned, which went into East Anglia, which in my case is German or French, and Cornwall, because everybody gets some Cornwall.

sktibo
06-19-2017, 08:43 PM
Complete,Standard and cautious.



17038

17039

17040

So Aberdeenshire does fall under "Orkney Related Ancestry" They must have made an error in saying it is SW + Orkney then.

JMcB
06-19-2017, 08:44 PM
Cautious
17057
Cautious Northumbria
17058
Mainland percentages complete
17059
World map complete
17060

OK, So Northumbria's cautious grouping has NW Scotland, Ireland, and Devon?
"This is a confidence group for Northumbria ancestry with large spread. It includes Northumbria, Northwest Scotland, Devon and Ireland populations. As it is the largest possible grouping for Northumbria and surrounding ancestry, you will likely be assigned this if either your ancestry from this region is both small and uncertain, or your ancestry is large but has multiple distinct sources from the region."
Mystery Solved I guess. Would not have thought that Northumbria would be grouped with NW Scot and Ireland.
South England cautious is also a weird mix: "This is a confidence group for South England ancestry with large spread. It includes South England, Southeast England, Devon and Southwest Scotland populations." Uhhh... and why does SW Scotland make sense for this one? I'm not sure I see the connection.
For some reason the Orkney related ancestry group looks percentagewise to include Aberdeenshire (11.5 + 1.9) = 13.4, which is my percentage for this group, yet it claims to be Orkney plus SW Scotland. Anyone else get this group and have it mixed with their Aberdeen %?

Finally, my mainland European populations are revealed: with 0% France. I did get 1.2% Iberian though, which I'm going to categorize as French. I'm going to say that Scandinavian is actually my Germanic percentage which has been mis-labeled. What I think is really cool is the 1.4% Middle Eastern / Kurdish percentage, perhaps that is related to my maternal line which I think is found in the Middle East in high frequencies. Interesting that it picked up my German and Eastern European ancestry but not my French.

Your theory has been vindicated!!! ;-) As for considering your Scandinavian as German, I'm doing the same thing and they do seem to back that up in thier notes:

"The genetic mixture of Scandinavia is strongest across Denmark, Norway and Sweden, but also possibly stretches into parts of Germany."

sktibo
06-19-2017, 08:46 PM
Your theory has been vindicated!!! ;-) As for considering your Scandinavian as German, I'm doing the same thing and they do seem to back that up in thier notes:

"The genetic mixture of Scandinavia is strongest across Denmark, Norway and Sweden, but also possibly stretches into parts of Germany."

Those sleepless nights and hundreds of posts boring you all to death with my ethnic estimate has finally paid off! Vindication feels good!

ajc347
06-19-2017, 08:49 PM
OK, So Northumbria's cautious grouping has NW Scotland, Ireland, and Devon?


I don't get how populations that are so far apart can be grouped together either.

In the East Anglia-related ancestry category, East Anglia and Northwest England populations are combined together. I really don't understand the rationale behind this.

sktibo
06-19-2017, 08:53 PM
I don't get how populations that are so far apart can be grouped together either.

In the East Anglia-related ancestry category, East Anglia and Northwest England populations are combined together. I really don't understand the rationale behind this.

I think the South England group is the weirdest of all.

ajc347
06-19-2017, 09:00 PM
I think the South England group is the weirdest of all.

I've not come across the population mix in that group as yet - which populations are they grouping together?

firemonkey
06-19-2017, 09:22 PM
I don't get how populations that are so far apart can be grouped together either.

In the East Anglia-related ancestry category, East Anglia and Northwest England populations are combined together. I really don't understand the rationale behind this.

Same here. Northumbria with Devon related? South Wales border with South Yorkshire related? Southwest Scotland with Orkney related and not Aberdeenshire with Orkney?

sktibo
06-19-2017, 09:45 PM
Same here. Northumbria with Devon related? South Wales border with South Yorkshire related? Southwest Scotland with Orkney related and not Aberdeenshire with Orkney?

I get the impression it's supposed to be Aberdeen with Orkney but someone or something screwed up. It is interesting that the Orcadian and Aberdeenshire populations combine as they both are largely derived from Pictish populations as I understand it.


I've not come across the population mix in that group as yet - which populations are they grouping together?

They Grouped South England, SE England, and Devon with SW Scotland for some reason.

@Jessie

I'll pass the message along to them.

Celt_??
06-20-2017, 12:58 AM
I get the impression it's supposed to be Aberdeen with Orkney.... It .

Maybe it has more to do with the Viking invasions of Southwest Scotland and of Northern Ireland:

17070

sktibo
06-20-2017, 02:50 AM
Maybe it has more to do with the Viking invasions of Southwest Scotland and of Northern Ireland:

17070

It would if a southwest Scotland percentage was included in that category, in this case it's a direct combination of the Aberdeenshire score plus orkney

ADW_1981
06-20-2017, 03:40 AM
They Grouped South England, SE England, and Devon with SW Scotland for some reason.



I think it's glitchy, my SE English grouping is different. For example, my "Cornish" related ancestry groups Cornwall with South England and Ireland in the shading of the map, despite my ancestry showing 0% Ireland. That doesn't sound right to me either.

deadly77
06-20-2017, 03:57 AM
As usual, late to the party - blame the time zone and work. Anyway:

Standard Mode
Northumbria 35.4%
NW England 15.6%
SW Border 9.6%
Cumbria 7.5%
SW Scotland/N Ireland 5.3%
Devon 4.6%
Central England 3.9%
N Wales 3.1%
S Yorkshire 2.2%
Cornwall 1.9%
Unassigned (GB&I) 10.9%

Complete
Northumbria 35.4%
NW England 15.6%
SW Border 9.6%
Cumbria 7.5%
SC England 6.6%
SW Scotland/N Ireland 5.3%
Devon 4.6%
C England 3.9%
N Wales 3.1%
Lincolnshire 2.5%
S Yorkshire 2.2%
Cornwall 1.9%
East Anglia 1.7%

Cautious
Northumbria related 48.2%
NW England related 31.2%
Cornwall related 6.5%
N Wales 3.1%
Unassigned (GB&I) 10.9%

Maps for cautious regions:
17074
17075
17076

Thoughts: This is bollocks. Most of the cautious regions overlap don't make much sense. Northumbria doesn't overlap with Cumbria, SW Scotland/Ireland or N Yorkshire but does overlap with Devon? Seriously? I mean I've heard about miners in Southwest England relocating to the Northeast for work, but why not Cornwall as well then? And Northwest England doesn't overlap with South Yorkshire or North Wales but does with Lincolnshire?
After Northumbria, my largest percentages should be South Yorkshire and East Anglia. The latter only shows up in complete mode as the lowest and the former is my third lowest.
Oh well, until the next update...

sktibo
06-20-2017, 04:07 AM
As usual, late to the party - blame the time zone and work. Anyway:

Standard Mode
Northumbria 35.4%
NW England 15.6%
SW Border 9.6%
Cumbria 7.5%
SW Scotland/N Ireland 5.3%
Devon 4.6%
Central England 3.9%
N Wales 3.1%
S Yorkshire 2.2%
Cornwall 1.9%
Unassigned (GB&I) 10.9%

Complete
Northumbria 35.4%
NW England 15.6%
SW Border 9.6%
Cumbria 7.5%
SC England 6.6%
SW Scotland/N Ireland 5.3%
Devon 4.6%
C England 3.9%
N Wales 3.1%
Lincolnshire 2.5%
S Yorkshire 2.2%
Cornwall 1.9%
East Anglia 1.7%

Cautious
Northumbria related 48.2%
NW England related 31.2%
Cornwall related 6.5%
N Wales 3.1%
Unassigned (GB&I) 10.9%

Maps for cautious regions:
17074
17075
17076

Thoughts: This is bollocks. Most of the cautious regions overlap don't make much sense. Northumbria doesn't overlap with Cumbria, SW Scotland/Ireland or N Yorkshire but does overlap with Devon? Seriously? I mean I've heard about miners in Southwest England relocating to the Northeast for work, but why not Cornwall as well then? And Northwest England doesn't overlap with South Yorkshire or North Wales but does with Lincolnshire?
After Northumbria, my largest percentages should be South Yorkshire and East Anglia. The latter only shows up in complete mode as the lowest and the former is my third lowest.
Oh well, until the next update...

ah so it gave you the northumbria / nw scot / Ireland / devon mix too hey? was wondering if yours would be more specific. The cautious modes ended up looking a bit more daring and speculative than the complete modes! they also look like they might contain errors in how they are grouped. Won't be too surprised if they roll out some sort of correction in the coming months

deadly77
06-20-2017, 04:19 AM
ah so it gave you the northumbria / nw scot / Ireland / devon mix too hey? was wondering if yours would be more specific. The cautious modes ended up looking a bit more daring and speculative than the complete modes! they also look like they might contain errors in how they are grouped. Won't be too surprised if they roll out some sort of correction in the coming months

Yeah, I got that. But I'm curious as to how they determined that. Was it that actual genetic similarities? To quote their own descriptions of Northumbria in standard mode "Throughout history, Northumbria has meant many things to many people, and its unique story has resulted in a unique genetic signature that can be detected within the region today" - that doesn't seem to stack up with the experiences of testers on here. And if that's the case why do I get a bunch of Devon but no NW Scotland or Ireland. I'm extremely skeptical that this is actually representative.

estevard
06-20-2017, 04:28 AM
I have no argument with the Sorting Hat.

Pour moi:

17079

Standard reprises Complete with the iffy (for paper me) North Wales and Cumbria being put in Unassigned.

Cautious seems to combine
[1] Aberdeenshire, Northwest Scotland and Southwest Scotland and Northern Ireland into Northwest Scotland-related and
[2] North Yorkshire and Northumbria into North Yorkshire-related.

Makes sense to me.

Southeast England and Cornwall, I assume because of their strength, are unchanged across all three modes but then so, too, is the weak Orkney, which didn't show up at all in the original February release.

I suspect north of Hadrian's Wall is going to give the Sorting Hat indigestion but for the time being I remain quibble free.

estevard
06-20-2017, 04:35 AM
I have no argument with the Sorting Hat.

Pour moi:

17080

Standard reprises Complete with the iffy (for paper me) North Wales and Cumbria being put in Unassigned.

Cautious seems to combine
[1] Aberdeenshire, Northwest Scotland and Southwest Scotland and Northern Ireland into Northwest Scotland-related and
[2] North Yorkshire and Northumbria into North Yorkshire-related.

Makes sense to me.

Southeast England and Cornwall, I assume because of their strength, are unchanged across all three modes but then so, too, is the weak Orkney, which didn't show up at all in the original February release.

I suspect north of Hadrian's Wall is going to give the Sorting Hat indigestion but for the time being I remain quibble free.

deadly77
06-20-2017, 04:44 AM
Taking another look at the POBI clusters, the blue circles for Devon have one right where Newcastle is in Northumbria, one in Cumbria and a couple next to the S Wales Border. But even so, The orange circles from Northumbria clearly extend into Cumbria and one into Northern Ireland. None at all in NW Scotland. We can't see Ireland but given that there's only seven samples, perhaps that was by design. I really can't see how NW England matches Lincolnshire unless you count the presence of a single purple cross from the Welsh Borders. And as I've said before, LivingDNA gives South Yorkshire a pretty small region on it's map while the POBI blue triangles are more widespread.
17081

sktibo
06-20-2017, 04:53 AM
Yeah, I got that. But I'm curious as to how they determined that. Was it that actual genetic similarities? To quote their own descriptions of Northumbria in standard mode "Throughout history, Northumbria has meant many things to many people, and its unique story has resulted in a unique genetic signature that can be detected within the region today" - that doesn't seem to stack up with the experiences of testers on here. And if that's the case why do I get a bunch of Devon but no NW Scotland or Ireland. I'm extremely skeptical that this is actually representative.

I agree with your points, and I think it's hilarious that they called this mode "cautious"

sktibo
06-20-2017, 05:01 AM
I have no argument with the Sorting Hat.

Pour moi:

17080

Standard reprises Complete with the iffy (for paper me) North Wales and Cumbria being put in Unassigned.

Cautious seems to combine
[1] Aberdeenshire, Northwest Scotland and Southwest Scotland and Northern Ireland into Northwest Scotland-related and
[2] North Yorkshire and Northumbria into North Yorkshire-related.

Makes sense to me.

Southeast England and Cornwall, I assume because of their strength, are unchanged across all three modes but then so, too, is the weak Orkney, which didn't show up at all in the original February release.

I suspect north of Hadrian's Wall is going to give the Sorting Hat indigestion but for the time being I remain quibble free.

So your cautious groupings actually make geographic sense, and not only that, but they add up too! Maybe they'll work on them so the rest of our groupings are of similar quality in the future

firemonkey
06-20-2017, 05:37 AM
I am trying to get the Orkney grouping of 49.4 to fit.

Using complete mode : Aberdeenshire 46.4 NW Scotland 1.7 SW Scotland and N Ireland 2.3 =50.4
Aberdeenshire 46.4 NW Scotland 1.7 Ireland 1.2 = 49.3
Aberdeenshire 46.4 SW Scotland and N Ireland 2.3 Ireland 1.2= 49.9


If I go by what it says: Orkney, Southwest Scotland, Northwest Scotland and Ireland populations. That only amounts to 2.3 +1.7 +1.2= 5.2% !


There is no actual Orkney. Originally I had 1.8% Orkney. As any possible Orkney connection is at the 6th gt level(0.39) the removal made sense,as I am not sure Living dna deals with % below 1.


On a side note, like many here, I think perhaps my Irish should be higher. I have 3/16 gt grandparents born in Ireland. Even if only one of those are Irish as opposed to Scottish Irish it would suggest 6.25% Irish.

sktibo
06-20-2017, 06:02 AM
@Deadly77

It looks like my "Northumbria related ancestry" is actually Northumbria plus Cumbria minus 0.1%. nrthbria: 42.1, cumbria: 2.4. Is your percentage a combination of these two also?

edit; added up your northumbria, cumbria, and sw Scotland to get 48.2%, your cautious mode northumbria score. And in cautious mode, you do finally surpass my northumbrian percentage​! I'm going to go ahead and say the maps are wrong and the percentages don't lie.

@Firemonkey

I think it's your Aberdeen, NW, and Ireland. I think these cautious groups can be off by 0.1%

firemonkey
06-20-2017, 06:55 AM
South Yorkshire-related ancestry

This is a confidence group for South Yorkshire ancestry with large spread. It includes South Yorkshire, North Yorkshire, Cumbria and South Wales Border populations.

Supposedly 25.6% of which I have S Yorkshire 10.4% N Yorkshire 1.2% = 11.6%


Devon-related ancestry

This is a confidence group for Devon ancestry with large spread. It includes Devon, South Wales Border, Northumbria and South Central England populations.

Again using complete mode. Devon 5.4% Northumbria 2.7% =8.1%. Supposed to be 16.1%.

Lack of any South central even in complete mode is surprising as I have ancestors from the Wotton under Edge,Gloucestershire area.

sktibo
06-20-2017, 08:14 AM
South Yorkshire-related ancestry

This is a confidence group for South Yorkshire ancestry with large spread. It includes South Yorkshire, North Yorkshire, Cumbria and South Wales Border populations.

Supposedly 25.6% of which I have S Yorkshire 10.4% N Yorkshire 1.2% = 11.6%


Devon-related ancestry

This is a confidence group for Devon ancestry with large spread. It includes Devon, South Wales Border, Northumbria and South Central England populations.

Again using complete mode. Devon 5.4% Northumbria 2.7% =8.1%. Supposed to be 16.1%.

Lack of any South central even in complete mode is surprising as I have ancestors from the Wotton under Edge,Gloucestershire area.

For most of us they certainly don't add up eh? Estevard's cautious regions all make sense, but I think he got lucky. I think maybe if you add up regions that aren't listed they might add up or come very close

JonikW
06-20-2017, 09:52 AM
South Yorkshire-related ancestry

This is a confidence group for South Yorkshire ancestry with large spread. It includes South Yorkshire, North Yorkshire, Cumbria and South Wales Border populations.

Supposedly 25.6% of which I have S Yorkshire 10.4% N Yorkshire 1.2% = 11.6%


Devon-related ancestry

This is a confidence group for Devon ancestry with large spread. It includes Devon, South Wales Border, Northumbria and South Central England populations.

Again using complete mode. Devon 5.4% Northumbria 2.7% =8.1%. Supposed to be 16.1%.

Lack of any South central even in complete mode is surprising as I have ancestors from the Wotton under Edge,Gloucestershire area.
Sorry if I've misunderstood but doesn't it say that Devon includes South Central England in cautious mode, according to the blurb in your post? I think my cautious results look accurate and it's worth bearing in mind that even a great grandparent may have washed out of our DNA. Also it seems possible that populations that are distant geographically may still form clusters at some level, hence some of the cautious mode groupings.

jonathanmcg1990
06-20-2017, 11:15 AM
Cautious
17057
Cautious Northumbria
17058
Mainland percentages complete
17059
World map complete
17060

OK, So Northumbria's cautious grouping has NW Scotland, Ireland, and Devon?
"This is a confidence group for Northumbria ancestry with large spread. It includes Northumbria, Northwest Scotland, Devon and Ireland populations. As it is the largest possible grouping for Northumbria and surrounding ancestry, you will likely be assigned this if either your ancestry from this region is both small and uncertain, or your ancestry is large but has multiple distinct sources from the region."
Mystery Solved I guess. Would not have thought that Northumbria would be grouped with NW Scot and Ireland.
South England cautious is also a weird mix: "This is a confidence group for South England ancestry with large spread. It includes South England, Southeast England, Devon and Southwest Scotland populations." Uhhh... and why does SW Scotland make sense for this one? I'm not sure I see the connection.
For some reason the Orkney related ancestry group looks percentagewise to include Aberdeenshire (11.5 + 1.9) = 13.4, which is my percentage for this group, yet it claims to be Orkney plus SW Scotland. Anyone else get this group and have it mixed with their Aberdeen %?

Finally, my mainland European populations are revealed: with 0% France. I did get 1.2% Iberian though, which I'm going to categorize as French. I'm going to say that Scandinavian is actually my Germanic percentage which has been mis-labeled. What I think is really cool is the 1.4% Middle Eastern / Kurdish percentage, perhaps that is related to my maternal line which I think is found in the Middle East in high frequencies. Interesting that it picked up my German and Eastern European ancestry but not my French.

17061
And complete mode British Isles. only had 3.7% unassigned, which went into East Anglia, which in my case is German or French, and Cornwall, because everybody gets some Cornwall.

I don't know why I still have no unassigned in standard mode with me having no unassigned in standard mode it mines my complete mode is unchanged from standard mode. I was very disappointed with complete mode as I thought complete mode would be very speculative and would have all the regions on POBI project for example at least the 3 regions that make up Orkney and the 2 regions that make Aberdeenshire.

On cautions mode I think I give it more credit that I actually am.

With me being Ulster/ Irish my DNA needs to have more work done as I have to wait for the Irish and Scottish grandparents project needs rolled out.

I am only pointing out a couple of things I find striking about the results. In the cautious mode they have grouped my North West Scotland, Ireland, SouthWest Scotland and Northern Ireland and I quite don't understand as much Cumbria. Into one big North West Scotland region which is obviously indicating I have a lot of Celtic deep ancestry but even more striking than that. With them naming it North West Scotland region does this mean Dalriada is bigger than previously thought. In compassing the Western Seaborne of Scotland, Ireland and Cumbria.

With my Cumbria region I can't get my head around they seemed to merge my Cumbria and Northumbria regions which makes sense as those areas admixture looks really similar on paper. But in the map is highlighted SouthWest Scotland and Northern Ireland and Cumbria. Beside this these backs up a theory I have about the Ulster Plantation not only did Unionist immigrant to specific parts of Ulster in the plantation I think they did come from specific areas in Great Britain to specific areas in Ulster. I have traced a lot of my paternal Ulster Scot to County Down and I have a high Cumbria percentage. If my theory is true most of my ancestors immigrant from Dumfries and Galloway and the Surrounding areas.

My other two regions I have an East Anglia region and they have also thrown in North West England and South Central England and my Cornwall region has South England. They have left out my South East England which is 7% in the other two modes. Does anyone know why this is?

https://my.livingdna.com/share/55cbce94-457f-11e7-a826-5254002fd1a4

Kind Regards

Jonathan McGuinness

ollie444
06-20-2017, 11:25 AM
Some of you seem to be very scathing of the 'cautious' mode'. I agree some of the groupings seem a little odd, but I'm sure they aren't making these up - there must be some genetic similarities between the regions somewhere. Perhaps they aren't using the POBI data for this bit? Presumably the POBI study project looks for unique markers in the 21 separate populations LivingDNA are using, but there may be some others markers that aren't totally unique, but are shared between the cautious groupings. This may also be why you can't simply add up regions from the other modes. Don't you think cautious mode would be rather useless if it was just adding up regions from the other modes. We could have done that ourselves already!

Remember, the cautious mode isn't saying you have ancestry from all the regions in a grouping, but that it could be from any of the regions in the grouping. It is sort of saying that the more precise regions from the POBI project may not be 100% accurate.

MacEochaidh
06-20-2017, 12:45 PM
Some of you seem to be very scathing of the 'cautious' mode'. I agree some of the groupings seem a little odd, but I'm sure they aren't making these up - there must be some genetic similarities between the regions somewhere. Perhaps they aren't using the POBI data for this bit? Presumably the POBI study project looks for unique markers in the 21 separate populations LivingDNA are using, but there may be some others markers that aren't totally unique, but are shared between the cautious groupings. This may also be why you can't simply add up regions from the other modes. Don't you think cautious mode would be rather useless if it was just adding up regions from the other modes. We could have done that ourselves already!

Remember, the cautious mode isn't saying you have ancestry from all the regions in a grouping, but that it could be from any of the regions in the grouping. It is sort of saying that the more precise regions from the POBI project may not be 100% accurate.

I'm very happy with my Cautious results. In my case the groupings make sense. Yes, because my Dad was adopted in Belfast I may never know his actual ancestry, but grouping my Cumbria score with SW Scotland and the north of Ireland makes more sense than Cumbria alone. It may always be hard for me to discern between my parents ancestry as my Mom's paternal side is also from Belfast and neither is around for testing, but I know her great grandfather was from the Outer Hebrides and the grouping of NW Scotland and Ireland makes sense. To me, the pieces have been put together.

sktibo
06-20-2017, 01:53 PM
Some of you seem to be very scathing of the 'cautious' mode'. I agree some of the groupings seem a little odd, but I'm sure they aren't making these up - there must be some genetic similarities between the regions somewhere. Perhaps they aren't using the POBI data for this bit? Presumably the POBI study project looks for unique markers in the 21 separate populations LivingDNA are using, but there may be some others markers that aren't totally unique, but are shared between the cautious groupings. This may also be why you can't simply add up regions from the other modes. Don't you think cautious mode would be rather useless if it was just adding up regions from the other modes. We could have done that ourselves already!

Remember, the cautious mode isn't saying you have ancestry from all the regions in a grouping, but that it could be from any of the regions in the grouping. It is sort of saying that the more precise regions from the POBI project may not be 100% accurate.

Hi Ollie, I think you bring up some good points, however we can clearly see a divide in the cautious results of some people vs others. For example, Estevard's regions seem to be a combination of exactly what they say they are, while firemonkey has an Orkney related grouping without an Orkney percentage that is clearly using his Aberdeen percentage for most of it. When we can add up our results and see that these groupings are combinations of standard mode assignments, and then they claim to be combinations other than that, something looks quite incorrect, especially when some peoples groupings are what they are claimed to be.
However, I feel I fall a bit into both camps. Their cautious grouping of Northumbria includes NW Scotland and Ireland, regions I have ancestry from but didn't get complete or standard assignments in.. In my case, this cautious grouping tells me that "these different groups are related to this region you got 42% in but we may not have been able to split them out of it" which would make sense. For all I know these regions do actually share a genetic signature of some sort, and what I've inherited was watered down to the point where they weren't able to assign it between the regions it is found in. It's the only plausible explanation for myself.
So I can see both sides of this: on one hand I'm given a strange grouping that confirms my theory about my own assignment, but on the other hand I'm seeing groupings in the estimates of others that clearly don't even include the named component. Like most DNA features, it seems to do a great job for some and a terrible job for others. My hope is that they spend some time fine tuning this feature over the summer.

Additional note: I have sent them a message asking how "Orkney related ancestry" is clearly Aberdeenshire plus Orkney, yet it claims to be an Orkney and or SW Scotland grouping? Hopefully I'll receive a decent answer, I used my own case as an example but I think it's applicable to many of us.

JMcB
06-20-2017, 04:35 PM
On a side note, like many here, I think perhaps my Irish should be higher. I have 3/16 gt grandparents born in Ireland. Even if only one of those are Irish as opposed to Scottish Irish it would suggest 6.25% Irish.

Hello firemonkey,

Unfortunately, I think that's a problem across the board for people with Irish ancestry. I should have results of approximately 12.5% Irish and they gave me 1.3%. Judging from their notes, it may be a while before everything is rectified.

Technical Note

We are currently expanding our Irish samples in our panel to fully recover Irish ancestry, although people with grandparents from Ireland are nearly always assigned at least some Irish ancestry. This is going to be improved greatly, with the expansion of our Irish dataset.

If you have Irish ancestry that you didn’t expect: This is probably real Celtic ancestry, but may reflect Scottish ancestry instead. One of our regional groups spans the Irish sea between Northern Ireland and South West Scotland, reflecting close genetic similarity between Scotland and Ireland.

If you have Irish ancestry but it is not inferred as strongly as expected: Unfortunately, due to the current limited number of Irish samples, we currently see many Irish people as a mixture of Ireland, Northern Ireland and South West Scotland, and North West Scotland. Many people will receive some English ancestry as well. This is “real” in the sense that the small Irish sample means that our method looks very far back into the past, perhaps 2000 years, and hence this accurately represents where your ancestors from that time have now spread out to live.

Solothurn
06-20-2017, 05:47 PM
My complete at least sorts my 19.6 unassigned :)

Europe 98.8%
Great Britain and Ireland 96.3%
South Wales Border 16.9%
Cumbria 16.3%
Northumbria 15.2%
Lincolnshire 10.3%
Northwest England 8.3%
Devon 6.2%
Central England 6.1%
South Central England 4%
Southwest Scotland and Northern Ireland 3.7%
North Yorkshire 2.1%
Cornwall 1.9%
South England 1.7%
Ireland 1.2%
Northwest Scotland 1.2%
South Yorkshire 1.1%
Europe (North and West) 2.5%
Scandinavia 2.5%
Asia (Central) 1.2%: Chechnya 1.2%

It is probably noise but does anybody else get Chechnya?

06-20-2017, 05:51 PM
My complete at least sorts my 19.6 unassigned :)

Europe 98.8%
Great Britain and Ireland 96.3%
South Wales Border 16.9%
Cumbria 16.3%
Northumbria 15.2%
Lincolnshire 10.3%
Northwest England 8.3%
Devon 6.2%
Central England 6.1%
South Central England 4%
Southwest Scotland and Northern Ireland 3.7%
North Yorkshire 2.1%
Cornwall 1.9%
South England 1.7%
Ireland 1.2%
Northwest Scotland 1.2%
South Yorkshire 1.1%
Europe (North and West) 2.5%
Scandinavia 2.5%
Asia (Central) 1.2%: Chechnya 1.2%

It is probably noise but does anybody else get Chechnya?
Nope, p.s think your on my gedmatch genesis, not sure what that could mean..

MacEochaidh
06-20-2017, 06:22 PM
My complete at least sorts my 19.6 unassigned :)

Europe 98.8%
Great Britain and Ireland 96.3%
South Wales Border 16.9%
Cumbria 16.3%
Northumbria 15.2%
Lincolnshire 10.3%
Northwest England 8.3%
Devon 6.2%
Central England 6.1%
South Central England 4%
Southwest Scotland and Northern Ireland 3.7%
North Yorkshire 2.1%
Cornwall 1.9%
South England 1.7%
Ireland 1.2%
Northwest Scotland 1.2%
South Yorkshire 1.1%
Europe (North and West) 2.5%
Scandinavia 2.5%
Asia (Central) 1.2%: Chechnya 1.2%

It is probably noise but does anybody else get Chechnya?

I get 1.6% Chechnya!

ollie444
06-20-2017, 06:34 PM
Hello firemonkey,

Unfortunately, I think that's a problem across the board for people with Irish ancestry. I should have results of approximately 12.5% Irish and they gave me 1.3%. Judging from their notes, it may be a while before everything is rectified.


I've seen mixed reports of when the Irish side of things will be rectified, from a couple of months to a couple of years. However, Living DNA have said to expect further updates this year, so who knows...

chelle
06-20-2017, 06:57 PM
My new complete mode results
170901709117092

firemonkey
06-20-2017, 07:54 PM
Sorry if I've misunderstood but doesn't it say that Devon includes South Central England in cautious mode, according to the blurb in your post? I think my cautious results look accurate and it's worth bearing in mind that even a great grandparent may have washed out of our DNA. Also it seems possible that populations that are distant geographically may still form clusters at some level, hence some of the cautious mode groupings.


My fault for not explaining properly. I should have said "Lack of any South central for me even in complete mode is surprising as I have ancestors from the Wotton under Edge,Gloucestershire area.

chelle
06-20-2017, 08:11 PM
Out of curiosity, how many of you have gotten a small amount of Pashtun on the new results? On WeGene depending on my Ancestry or 23andme data I either have a small amount on Sindh or Iranian and Saudi Arabia, on Ancestry and 23andme I have only about .1 shown, on Gedmatch it varies to about 0-2 percent depending on the test for various South Asian or Middle Eastern/Caucus groups. How many of you think these amounts are legitimate or more of a noise issue, since they vary so much by region and amount? Kind of reminds me of my small African amount. On 23andme it is less than a percent of West African, on Ancestry it is 2 percent North African and on Gedmatch it seems to be both and in much higher amounts. :noidea:

JMcB
06-20-2017, 08:27 PM
My new complete mode results
170901709117092

Hello Chelle,

I see you got Mordovia, too. Does anyone know what's up with that? Is that some ancient signal that's showing up in people results.

chelle
06-20-2017, 08:40 PM
Hello Chelle,

I see you got Mordovia, too. Does anyone know what up with that? Is that some ancient signal that's showing up in people results.

I have no idea. I went from having about 20% unassigned to now having Iberian, Tuscany, Mordovia and Pastun thrown in the mix. I just assumed all of that was how my Jewish percentage got allotted. My maternal great grandparents were Russian-Jewish immigrants, so I guess the Mordovia could make sense for that, but yeah, still seems a bit random. haha How about you? Can you see any way that you know to make it fit for you?

JohnHowellsTyrfro
06-20-2017, 08:46 PM
Been off- line for a few days. Of course everything happens when you are away.:)
At first glance the new results seem much closer to what I know of my ancestry in South and East Wales and the borders. Noticeable my Northumbrian, Yorkshire and Irish seems to have disappeared. Sardinian and Orkney are interesting albeit small percentages. John
Cautious
Great Britain and Ireland 94.5%
South Wales Border-related ancestry 79.7%
North Wales 7.2%
Northwest Scotland 3.4%
Cornwall-related ancestry 3.1%
Orkney-related ancestry 1.3%
Europe (unassigned) 2.6%
Asia (South) 1.4%
Burusho 1.4%
World (unassigned) 1.4%

Complete

Great Britain and Ireland 94.5%
South Wales Border 59.4%
South Wales 17.4%
North Wales 7.2%
Northwest Scotland 3.4%
Cornwall 3.1%
South Central England 2.8%
Orkney 1.3%
Europe (South) 2.6%
Basque 1.5%
Sardinia 1%
Asia (Central) 1.4%
Northwest Caucasus 1.4%
Asia (South) 1.4%
Burusho 1.4%

standard
Great Britain and Ireland 94.5%
South Wales Border 59.4%
South Wales 17.4%
North Wales 7.2%
Northwest Scotland 3.4%
Cornwall 3.1%
South Central England 2.8%
Orkney 1.3%
Europe (unassigned) 2.6%
Asia (South) 1.4%
Burusho 1.4%
World (unassigned) 1.4%

Stephen1986
06-20-2017, 09:24 PM
Out of curiosity, how many of you have gotten a small amount of Pashtun on the new results? On WeGene depending on my Ancestry or 23andme data I either have a small amount on Sindh or Iranian and Saudi Arabia, on Ancestry and 23andme I have only about .1 shown, on Gedmatch it varies to about 0-2 percent depending on the test for various South Asian or Middle Eastern/Caucus groups. How many of you think these amounts are legitimate or more of a noise issue, since they vary so much by region and amount? Kind of reminds me of my small African amount. On 23andme it is less than a percent of West African, on Ancestry it is 2 percent North African and on Gedmatch it seems to be both and in much higher amounts. :noidea:

I get 1.2% Pashtun.

Dewsloth
06-20-2017, 09:32 PM
Been off- line for a few days. Of course everything happens when you are away.:)
At first glance the new results seem much closer to what I know of my ancestry in South and East Wales and the borders. Noticeable my Northumbrian, Yorkshire and Irish seems to have disappeared. Sardinian and Orkney are interesting albeit small percentages. John

Complete

Great Britain and Ireland 94.5%
South Wales Border 59.4%
South Wales 17.4%
North Wales 7.2%
Northwest Scotland 3.4%
Cornwall 3.1%
South Central England 2.8%
Orkney 1.3%
Europe (South) 2.6%
Basque 1.5%
Sardinia 1%
Asia (Central) 1.4%
Northwest Caucasus 1.4%
Asia (South) 1.4%
Burusho 1.4%



Other than roughly similar NW Scotland and Cornwall percentages, you and Dad almost couldn't be more different coming from the same island. ;)
It's not just even Celt vs Saxon/Norman/Viking -- you've got Orkney as well as South Central England.



Dad:
Europe 100%

Great Britain and Ireland 71.1%
Southeast England 20.6%
East Anglia 13.6%
Lincolnshire 12.2%
South Central England 9.5%
South Yorkshire 4.7%
Northwest Scotland 2.4%
Cumbria 2.4%
Devon 2.3%
Cornwall 2.2%
North Yorkshire 1.2%

Europe (South) 14.3%
North Italy 11.1%
Aegean 3.2%
Europe (North and West) 8.2%
Scandinavia 8.2%
Europe (East) 6.4%
West Balkans 2.6%
East Balkans 2%
Finland and Western Russia 1.8%

JonikW
06-20-2017, 10:40 PM
John, Wondered where you were given our common Monmouthshire/Brecon ancestry!17106
I've got more borders than you but less South Wales.

Amerijoe
06-20-2017, 11:17 PM
Out of curiosity, how many of you have gotten a small amount of Pashtun on the new results? On WeGene depending on my Ancestry or 23andme data I either have a small amount on Sindh or Iranian and Saudi Arabia, on Ancestry and 23andme I have only about .1 shown, on Gedmatch it varies to about 0-2 percent depending on the test for various South Asian or Middle Eastern/Caucus groups. How many of you think these amounts are legitimate or more of a noise issue, since they vary so much by region and amount? Kind of reminds me of my small African amount. On 23andme it is less than a percent of West African, on Ancestry it is 2 percent North African and on Gedmatch it seems to be both and in much higher amounts. :noidea:

These admixtures can cause confusion. I received a small amount Kurd which for me makes some sense. With other testing companies this particular designation is assigned Arabian, Ashkenazi, European Jewish, Middle Eastern, Asian, West Asian. Each of the admixtures produce differing results. Results vary due to the number and location of the autosomal snps used. Recalling a read in a scientific discussion on ethnicity, suggesting that collecting 10 to 20K DNA samples may not be enough for accurate reference a particular region. Also, their algorithms vary and are unproven at best. In essence a lot of interpretive conjecture is mixed with high tech scientific analysis to see if you are eligible for a pair of wooden shoes to go with your Lederhosen under your kilt.

Livingdna regional category Near East is comprised of the following.
Near East

Arabia
Armenia and Cyprus
Iran
Kurdish
Levant
North Turkey
South Turkey

Each of these populations show up either on my testing results or in admixtures at gedmatch. I attribute these outcomes to my Poltavka Outlier ancestor. P.O. is listed as R1a1a1b2a Z93(Z94+) for which I test positive. This may also be where my German originated. Analysis of the Poltavka Outlier DNA indicates 36.3% German Middle Neolithic. Preliminary thought is P.O. originated west of his burial site.

JMcB
06-21-2017, 12:11 AM
I have no idea. I went from having about 20% unassigned to now having Iberian, Tuscany, Mordovia and Pastun thrown in the mix. I just assumed all of that was how my Jewish percentage got allotted. My maternal great grandparents were Russian-Jewish immigrants, so I guess the Mordovia could make sense for that, but yeah, still seems a bit random. haha How about you? Can you see any way that you know to make it fit for you?

To be honest I don't really know. Perhaps their reference to people migrating from the Mediterranean looking for ore, could align with my Aegean. However, it's such a small amount (1.6%) I suspect it's probably some ancient trace element they're picking up. Your possible explanation seems to be on firmer ground than mine is. At any rate, it will give me a good excuse to learn more about Mordovia. ;-)

Mike_G
06-21-2017, 12:19 AM
To be honest I don't really know. Perhaps their mention about people migrating from the Mediterranean looking for ore, could align with my Aegean call. However, it's such a small amount (1.6%) I suspect it's probably just some ancient trace elements they're picking up. Your possible explanation seems to be on firmer ground than mine is. At any rate, it will give me a good excuse to learn more about Mordovia. ;-)

First time Mordovia/Erzya popped up in a Gedmatch calculator for me (and I'll be damned if I can find it now), I had no idea where or what it was. After I looked into it I thought "Damn, I know I'm Eastern European, but not east of Moscow east!" One of its claims to fame is that it's got a big prison complex and houses enemies of the state. "Mordovlag"

And I thought my New Jersey upbringing and heritage had some shady elements. ;)

Jessie
06-21-2017, 01:18 AM
My complete at least sorts my 19.6 unassigned :)

Europe 98.8%
Great Britain and Ireland 96.3%
South Wales Border 16.9%
Cumbria 16.3%
Northumbria 15.2%
Lincolnshire 10.3%
Northwest England 8.3%
Devon 6.2%
Central England 6.1%
South Central England 4%
Southwest Scotland and Northern Ireland 3.7%
North Yorkshire 2.1%
Cornwall 1.9%
South England 1.7%
Ireland 1.2%
Northwest Scotland 1.2%
South Yorkshire 1.1%
Europe (North and West) 2.5%
Scandinavia 2.5%
Asia (Central) 1.2%: Chechnya 1.2%

It is probably noise but does anybody else get Chechnya?

Yes I get Chechnya 1.4% along with Pashtun 1.3% in complete mode.

Mike_G
06-21-2017, 01:35 AM
Yes I get Chechnya 1.4% along with Pashtun 1.3% in complete mode.

Now I feel better about my 1.4% Northern Turkey.

sktibo
06-21-2017, 01:42 AM
Now I feel better about my 1.4% Northern Turkey.

Yes I get Chechnya 1.4% along with Pashtun 1.3% in complete mode.

Is there room in that party for my 1.4% Kurdish? Lot of strange 1.4% results going on here.

chelle
06-21-2017, 02:11 AM
To be honest I don't really know. Perhaps their reference to people migrating from the Mediterranean looking for ore, could align with my Aegean. However, it's such a small amount (1.6%) I suspect it's probably some ancient trace element they're picking up. Your possible explanation seems to be on firmer ground than mine is. At any rate, it will give me a good excuse to learn more about Mordovia. ;-)

Always fun to learn new things. ;)

Wonder if/when percentages and regions will shift again.

sktibo
06-21-2017, 02:28 AM
Always fun to learn new things. ;)

Wonder if/when percentages and regions will shift again.

Ireland update I'm assuming, unless they change their algorithm again.

firemonkey
06-21-2017, 03:03 AM
I think my ancestry must be very boring(oh for something exotic!) as I see very few others with 100% British on Living dna.

Amerijoe
06-21-2017, 03:35 AM
First time Mordovia/Erzya popped up in a Gedmatch calculator for me (and I'll be damned if I can find it now), I had no idea where or what it was. After I looked into it I thought "Damn, I know I'm Eastern European, but not east of Moscow east!" One of its claims to fame is that it's got a big prison complex and houses enemies of the state. "Mordovlag"

And I thought my New Jersey upbringing and heritage had some shady elements. ;)

Mike, try MDLP World-22 4-Ancestors Oracle. Mordovia shows up in my results. Is it indigenous to R1a or does an R1b show any?

deadly77
06-21-2017, 03:45 AM
I think my ancestry must be very boring(oh for something exotic!) as I see very few others with 100% British on Living dna.

I'm 100% Great Britain and Ireland now, was 98.5% previously.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
06-21-2017, 04:10 AM
Other than roughly similar NW Scotland and Cornwall percentages, you and Dad almost couldn't be more different coming from the same island. ;)
It's not just even Celt vs Saxon/Norman/Viking -- you've got Orkney as well as South Central England.

The Orkney and SW Scottish is a bit of a mystery although one of my Herefordshire ancestors had the surname Leath which could suggest some Scottish ancestry and if so that branch could include people from the Scottish Isles. Of course there could be another explanation. I do have a fairly recent ancestor from Lincolnshire as well as a likely "Jones" connection to North Wales (possibly Anglesey) from family finder, but of course the paper trail is difficult.
For the most part though my ancestry seems to be where I would expect it to be. My lot seem to have been mostly farmers/ agricultural workers and from known records did not move around much over the last few hundred years at least, possibly for much longer. I'm guessing from this most of my ancestry has been in the same region for a long time
Researching my Y ancestry I've recently found a clue which if confirmed could suggest my paternal ancestors were farming the same piece of land for a very long time. My ancestors were farming "Old Hay" in the 1800's. I must admit I am wondering if my Y U106 comes from a source other than Anglo/Saxon. There isn't a lot in my results to suggest a long migration of ancestors from South/Eastern England to the Welsh borders, accepting though a paternal ancestor could be a "one-off". John

"“Gift (13th January 1389)
Between
1) John de la Hay, lord of Urishay
2) Walter ap Howel
Parcel of land called Oldeheye [Old Hay], stretching from Walter’s house to Holbrokesford, and from land of William Syllas to land of Jevan Rygel, and one messuage enclosed by boundary markers, (enclosed from common land).
Walter to pay 2s 6d pa with all usual dues including suit of court.
Walter to enclose his fields, and pasture his beasts in the common pasture, viz. 12 steers and 12 cows, 2 horses and 40 sheep."

JohnHowellsTyrfro
06-21-2017, 04:43 AM
John, Wondered where you were given our common Monmouthshire/Brecon ancestry!17106
I've got more borders than you but less South Wales.

I suppose the percentages we get from our ancestors is a bit of a lottery. There may be ancestry that just doesn't show up in us as individuals. I am wondering whether the "Cornish" is really Welsh or Welsh Border, similar ancestral make-up I would think? John

estevard
06-21-2017, 05:58 AM
So your cautious groupings actually make geographic sense, and not only that, but they add up too! Maybe they'll work on them so the rest of our groupings are of similar quality in the future

I think I may be the beneficiary of the Goldilocks effect: my mixture and the timeframe in which it occurred may be "just right" for the LivingDNA test at this stage of its development. I have three distinct ancestral "homelands" (Cornwall; Kent/Sussex/Hampshire; and the Baltics) that are geographically separate and, unlike the case with many Norteamericanos my diverse ancestral mixing has occurred only within the last 200 years.

However as with most others, my Scottish components are not gelling just yet. Even on paper it's a complicated Lowland-Highland-Island blend and trying to sort that with the minimal samples they have on hand at the moment is obviously a challenge.

I am optimistic about LivingDNA and even in these early stages I feel I have got more value for money than with either the AncestryDNA or FTDNA ancestral analyses.

And their phased delivery is a winner: look at the entertainment it is generating!

sktibo
06-21-2017, 06:34 AM
I think I may be the beneficiary of the Goldilocks effect: my mixture and the timeframe in which it occurred may be "just right" for the LivingDNA test at this stage of its development. I have three distinct ancestral "homelands" (Cornwall; Kent/Sussex/Hampshire; and the Baltics) that are geographically separate and, unlike the case with many Norteamericanos my diverse ancestral mixing has occurred only within the last 200 years.

However as with most others, my Scottish components are not gelling just yet. Even on paper it's a complicated Lowland-Highland-Island blend and trying to sort that with the minimal samples they have on hand at the moment is obviously a challenge.

I am optimistic about LivingDNA and even in these early stages I feel I have got more value for money than with either the AncestryDNA or FTDNA ancestral analyses.

And their phased delivery is a winner: look at the entertainment it is generating!

Right you are about the entertainment; i think that is why cautious mode is my favourite of the new views despite it being so wacky for so many of us. Living DNA is imo the most entertaining of any DNA test available. I thought some parts of my ancestry would be easy for it to pick apart, such as one great grandparent whose ancestry is entirely Central English, and is the furthest traced line in our family tree, but not a fraction of a percentage of central English or even south Yorkshire. I suppose one must really need this Goldilocks factor such as you describe, and I'm admittedly missing part of that formula. Yet it's strange that they did such a comparatively good job on my grandmother's ancestry: correct south English regions, percentages add up, they split the Welsh closely enough, and the Scottish percentage is very close. It's very strange that their test can do that and yet what i would consider to be the most obvious part of my ancestry isn't included!

JonikW
06-21-2017, 08:55 AM
I suppose the percentages we get from our ancestors is a bit of a lottery. There may be ancestry that just doesn't show up in us as individuals. I am wondering whether the "Cornish" is really Welsh or Welsh Border, similar ancestral make-up I would think? John

I have a Cornish surname a few generations back and some of my other West Country lines may have come from there. I'll try to do some family research soon. You don't know of any Cornish ancestry then? Movement of miners to South Wales from a declining Cornish tin industry is a possibility.

JonikW
06-21-2017, 08:58 AM
I think I may be the beneficiary of the Goldilocks effect: my mixture and the timeframe in which it occurred may be "just right" for the LivingDNA test at this stage of its development. I have three distinct ancestral "homelands" (Cornwall; Kent/Sussex/Hampshire; and the Baltics) that are geographically separate and, unlike the case with many Norteamericanos my diverse ancestral mixing has occurred only within the last 200 years.

However as with most others, my Scottish components are not gelling just yet. Even on paper it's a complicated Lowland-Highland-Island blend and trying to sort that with the minimal samples they have on hand at the moment is obviously a challenge.

I am optimistic about LivingDNA and even in these early stages I feel I have got more value for money than with either the AncestryDNA or FTDNA ancestral analyses.

And their phased delivery is a winner: look at the entertainment it is generating!

What Cornish percentage did Living DNA give you? Was it around the 12.5% mark according to your genealogy?

06-21-2017, 09:23 AM
I have a Cornish surname a few generations back and some of my other West Country lines may have come from there. I'll try to do some family research soon. You don't know of any Cornish ancestry then? Movement of miners to South Wales from a declining Cornish tin industry is a possibility.

I know for fact allot came to Llanelli, and Burry Port area. although the ancestor I know about came (female) in a boat with a "Pilot captain, who she married", so for him to be going back and forth there must have been something significant going on with people and trade transfer between Cornwall and S Wales.

06-21-2017, 09:26 AM
I suppose the percentages we get from our ancestors is a bit of a lottery. There may be ancestry that just doesn't show up in us as individuals. I am wondering whether the "Cornish" is really Welsh or Welsh Border, similar ancestral make-up I would think? John

Hi John, even so the historical and linguistic ties, genetically from the POBI study, Cornwall genetically clusters distinctly from S Wales.

Xtian
06-21-2017, 09:27 AM
First time Mordovia/Erzya popped up in a Gedmatch calculator for me (and I'll be damned if I can find it now), I had no idea where or what it was. After I looked into it I thought "Damn, I know I'm Eastern European, but not east of Moscow east!" One of its claims to fame is that it's got a big prison complex and houses enemies of the state. "Mordovlag"

And I thought my New Jersey upbringing and heritage had some shady elements. ;)

Funny thing is I am Russian, South near Rostov on Don and I don't get any Mordvin in LivingDNA but on GedMatch it comes up near the top all the time, especially on the MDLP project.

06-21-2017, 09:33 AM
Been off- line for a few days. Of course everything happens when you are away.:)
At first glance the new results seem much closer to what I know of my ancestry in South and East Wales and the borders. Noticeable my Northumbrian, Yorkshire and Irish seems to have disappeared. Sardinian and Orkney are interesting albeit small percentages. John
Cautious
Great Britain and Ireland 94.5%
South Wales Border-related ancestry 79.7%
North Wales 7.2%
Northwest Scotland 3.4%
Cornwall-related ancestry 3.1%
Orkney-related ancestry 1.3%
Europe (unassigned) 2.6%
Asia (South) 1.4%
Burusho 1.4%
World (unassigned) 1.4%

Complete

Great Britain and Ireland 94.5%
South Wales Border 59.4%
South Wales 17.4%
North Wales 7.2%
Northwest Scotland 3.4%
Cornwall 3.1%
South Central England 2.8%
Orkney 1.3%
Europe (South) 2.6%
Basque 1.5%
Sardinia 1%
Asia (Central) 1.4%
Northwest Caucasus 1.4%
Asia (South) 1.4%
Burusho 1.4%

standard
Great Britain and Ireland 94.5%
South Wales Border 59.4%
South Wales 17.4%
North Wales 7.2%
Northwest Scotland 3.4%
Cornwall 3.1%
South Central England 2.8%
Orkney 1.3%
Europe (unassigned) 2.6%
Asia (South) 1.4%
Burusho 1.4%
World (unassigned) 1.4%

Hi John Cool results,

I also am getting Basque at 1.9%, although on the notes it suggest this indicates it could also be a remnant ancient European population

JohnHowellsTyrfro
06-21-2017, 10:50 AM
Hi John, even so the historical and linguistic ties, genetically from the POBI study, Cornwall genetically clusters distinctly from S Wales.

Maybe an ancestor I don't know about then, but I've heard no mention of Cornish ancestry in the family, not that I know everyone. I have the impression that quite a few people score Cornish, but maybe I'm just noticing them more than some others. Recent or old I wonder? :) John

06-21-2017, 10:57 AM
Maybe an ancestor I don't know about then, but I've heard no mention of Cornish ancestry in the family, not that I know everyone. I have the impression that quite a few people score Cornish, but maybe I'm just noticing them more than some others. Recent or old I wonder? :) John

Well if we are going back 10 generations, that's probably well before 1800s, imagine getting all them ancestors in a room, and asking them where their grandparents originally came from. To me its quite mind boggling.
With My DNA results im getting in Cautious Mode im getting North Yorkshire related at 12.9%, that's a fair amount, but I still can't find it, but so many of my tree branches are still hidden from me, so could be real.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
06-21-2017, 11:05 AM
Hi John Cool results,

I also am getting Basque at 1.9%, although on the notes it suggest this indicates it could also be a remnant ancient European population

Yes , it's quite consistent with what I tend to get elsewhere, so Basque and Asia Central and South I guess are probably ancient population indicators.
The Sardinia and Orkney could possibly be as well I suppose. I'm only just reading about Sardinian DNA, but it seems it's another relatively genetically isolated population. John

"Ötzi seems to resemble mostly closely the people of Sardinia. This is rather interesting. One reason is prosaic. The HGDP sample used in the paper has many Northern Italians (from Bergamo). Why is it that Ötzi does not resemble the people from the region that he was indigenous to? (we know that he was indigenous because of the ratio of isotopes in his body) A more abstruse issue is that it is interesting that Sardinians have remained moored to their genetic past, enough so that a 5,300 year old individual clearly can exhibit affinities with them. The distinctiveness of Sardinians jumps out at you when you analyze genetic data sets. They were clearly set apart in L. L. Cavalli-Sforza’s The History and Geography of Human Genes, 20 years ago."

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiJ4quH5M7UAhWlKcAKHXNCDBsQFgg0MAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.discovermagazine.com%2Fgnxp %2F2012%2F02%2Fotzi-the-iceman-and-the-sardinians%2F&usg=AFQjCNG_7-a_cqlziebMrDCSUEgRXVd5ng&sig2=qKqP6pYOuvzWP6Dnt1MP9g

JohnHowellsTyrfro
06-21-2017, 11:20 AM
I have a Cornish surname a few generations back and some of my other West Country lines may have come from there. I'll try to do some family research soon. You don't know of any Cornish ancestry then? Movement of miners to South Wales from a declining Cornish tin industry is a possibility.

Yes it certainly is a possibility but the options are quite limited as I know where a lot of my comparatively recent ancestors came from and Cornwall doesn't feature, nor any mention of Cornish ancestry. Of course there could be people whose ancestry I don't know. I don't rule that out, but I wonder if it is something older showing through, how much older, though, I couldn't say. :) John

estevard
06-22-2017, 03:42 AM
What Cornish percentage did Living DNA give you? Was it around the 12.5% mark according to your genealogy?

And then some. In all three modes (Complete, Standard, Cautious) I get 19.2%.

I gather some LivingDNAers are scoring Cornwall out of thin air. However, my higher than expected assignment may be a recombination bonus, the Cornish muscling out other ancestral contributions.

I score just one AncestryDNA Genetic Community, centred on Cornwall. And I have numerous Cornwall cousin matches. My closest on FTDNA's Family Finder is a documented 3rd cousin once removed up descended from Cornish great-great-great grandparents. Statistically we would expect to share on average 26.56 centiMorgans but we score 103 cM, by FTDNA's measure, which is at the high end of the range in Blaine Bettinger's Shared cM Project (average 56 cM; Range 0-156 cM).

I even like Cornish pasties. Proof positive.

Goodman
06-23-2017, 03:37 PM
Has everyone had this update yet, or are people still waiting? I've not had mine yet nor have I been made aware of any update...

FionnSneachta
06-23-2017, 04:17 PM
Has everyone had this update yet, or are people still waiting? I've not had mine yet nor have I been made aware of any update...

I don't think anyone got an email or anything to let them know about the update. People just found out by checking their account. As far as I'm aware practically everyone seems to have gotten the update. I know that someone on Twitter contacted them claiming that they hadn't seen the update yet so maybe there are still a few that need to be updated.

angscoire
06-23-2017, 04:54 PM
Has everyone had this update yet, or are people still waiting? I've not had mine yet nor have I been made aware of any update...

Not had my updates either . I mailed them about it yesterday. They can apparently see my results at their end but I can't see my results when I log in . Likely solved sometime next week, as I doubt their IT team work weekends.....

Goodman
06-23-2017, 05:30 PM
I don't think anyone got an email or anything to let them know about the update. People just found out by checking their account. As far as I'm aware practically everyone seems to have gotten the update. I know that someone on Twitter contacted them claiming that they hadn't seen the update yet so maybe there are still a few that need to be updated.OK thanks for the reply, hope it's not too long a wait.

Goodman
06-23-2017, 05:34 PM
Not had my updates either . I mailed them about it yesterday. They can apparently see my results at their end but I can't see my results when I log in . Likely solved sometime next week, as I doubt their IT team work weekends.....This maybe due to the fact of me receiving this test free as a DNA
Worldwide customer, I was told I'd get free updates for the rest of my life haha, I hope they haven't changed their minds 😄 Thanks for the reply and the info 👍

ollie444
06-23-2017, 05:37 PM
Has everyone had this update yet, or are people still waiting? I've not had mine yet nor have I been made aware of any update...


I don't think anyone got an email or anything to let them know about the update. People just found out by checking their account. As far as I'm aware practically everyone seems to have gotten the update. I know that someone on Twitter contacted them claiming that they hadn't seen the update yet so maybe there are still a few that need to be updated.


Not had my updates either . I mailed them about it yesterday. They can apparently see my results at their end but I can't see my results when I log in . Likely solved sometime next week, as I doubt their IT team work weekends.....

Are you just talking about the complete and cautious modes here or are you expecting changes in your results too? I think that Living DNA fixed the chip issue for new testers several months ago and the updates were just fixing a backlog? Not sure though.

Goodman
06-23-2017, 05:40 PM
Are you just talking about the complete and cautious modes here or are you expecting changes in your results too? I think that Living DNA fixed the chip issue for new testers several months ago and the updates were just fixing a backlog? Not sure though.I'm waiting for Cautious and Complete modes.

FionnSneachta
06-23-2017, 05:51 PM
I'm waiting for Cautious and Complete modes.

It wouldn't be any harm emailing them just in case they haven't noticed any issue and think that everyone has complete results. It might make them quicken their pace too.

Goodman
06-23-2017, 06:08 PM
It wouldn't be any harm emailing them just in case they haven't noticed any issue and think that everyone has complete results. It might make them quicken their pace too.Yes I think so too, I'll send them one now.

Solothurn
06-27-2017, 12:49 AM
I also have 1% Caucasus at Ancestry :behindsofa:

Do you know of anybody else that has Chechnya?


I get 1.6% Chechnya!

Jessie
06-27-2017, 01:21 AM
I also have 1% Caucasus at Ancestry :behindsofa:

Do you know of anybody else that has Chechnya?

Yes I have Chechnya as well and some Pashtun and only British and Irish results. Something excess giving these exotic results for people of only Irish or British ancestry.

Dibran
06-27-2017, 01:39 AM
I also have 1% Caucasus at Ancestry :behindsofa:

Do you know of anybody else that has Chechnya?

Is the your ancestry through history feature unique to each tester? Or are they just stock images?

Additionally the great Britain and Ireland feature which allows you to see your ancestry through history in that region, is that only a feature for northwestern Europeans available? Or will someone from southern Europe have their own section?

timberwolf
06-27-2017, 03:16 AM
The Ancestry through time feature is unique to each individual. But it does appear to over lap with most testers results.

What I have noticed at the with the age of discovery map is that for most Brits and Irish, France and then Germany, aligns closest and is the darkest colored regions at that period of time.

In my case it is France then Spain. This is just my observation, I may be off the mark with my opinion.

Personally I find it the most interesting of LDNA's features.

https://www.livingdna.com/en-nz/help-centre/88/what-does-my-autosomal-through-history-plot-show

MacEochaidh
06-27-2017, 04:06 AM
I also have 1% Caucasus at Ancestry :behindsofa:

Do you know of anybody else that has Chechnya?

No, no one else I've seen. Plus you and I match on GedMatch Genesis in a 7.1 generation way. There goes our Isles identity :)

Dibran
06-27-2017, 04:24 AM
The Ancestry through time feature is unique to each individual. But it does appear to over lap with most testers results.

What I have noticed at the with the age of discovery map is that for most Brits and Irish, France and then Germany, aligns closest and is the darkest colored regions at that period of time.

In my case it is France then Spain. This is just my observation, I may be off the mark with my opinion.

Personally I find it the most interesting of LDNA's features.

https://www.livingdna.com/en-nz/help-centre/88/what-does-my-autosomal-through-history-plot-show

Interesting. That's good to hear. How about the individualized section. I noticed for British and Irish people they got a section of their region through history.

Would there be a section for s predominantly Southern European that shows history in that region through time? Or is this specific feature only for U.K. ?

timberwolf
06-27-2017, 04:59 AM
Hi Dibran

Not too sure.

I would think that they would present their information the same fashion for all testers.

The through time feature is three different maps. the British Isles, Europe and the World

I quite like the Europe"age of discovery map" set 500 years in the past. I would imagine in your case the Balkans should be the darkest colored part of the map, with the most dots. The Europe feature should be of most value to you.

I hope that helps.

Cinnamon orange
06-27-2017, 07:14 AM
There is a thread on 23andme where an African American received zero African on Living DNA, he is I think on 23andme around sixty some percent African. Another user Puerto Rican, should have received a small amount of African as well but did not.
These are recent results.
I understand the focus is on British isles ancestry but that seems a major error with certain new results.

C J Wyatt III
06-27-2017, 09:04 AM
There is a thread on 23andme where an African American received zero African on Living DNA, he is I think on 23andme around sixty some percent African. Another user Puerto Rican, should have received a small amount of African as well but did not.
These are recent results.
I understand the focus is on British isles ancestry but that seems a major error with certain new results.

My research is showing that what appears to be trace amounts of Native American and African in people from the British Isles is probably legit in most cases rather than noise. I wonder if Living DNA made the decision to rule those out but with the unexpected consequences of missing some larger amounts.

Jack Wyatt

06-27-2017, 09:09 AM
There is a thread on 23andme where an African American received zero African on Living DNA, he is I think on 23andme around sixty some percent African. Another user Puerto Rican, should have received a small amount of African as well but did not.
These are recent results.
I understand the focus is on British isles ancestry but that seems a major error with certain new results.


I know the Puerto Rican lady, asked LDNA for comment (think she is still awaiting response), I think it's important to hear what they have to say first before tarnishing their name, Do you know if the African American, asked LDNA for comment? if so what was their reply, I think we need to look at these results, and the response critically to determine what is going on.

Cinnamon orange
06-27-2017, 09:09 AM
My research is showing that what appears to be trace amounts of Native American and African in people from the British Isles is probably legit in most cases rather than noise. I wonder if Living DNA made the decision to rule those out but with the unexpected consequences of missing some larger amounts.

Jack Wyatt

I doubt it. I think it is either an error with a recent batch of tests or they are claiming they test for populations which they do not.
I saw another thread on here where the Puerto Rican poster from 23andme gave her results. All over the british isles. I have reconsidered my decision to use them to help track my own British isles ancestors. If they are not assigning correctly the ancestry which is their core business, I have no faith.

Edit: typo

Cinnamon orange
06-27-2017, 09:13 AM
I know the Puerto Rican lady, asked LDNA for comment (think she is still awaiting response), I think it's important to hear what they have to say first before tarnishing their name, Do you know if the African American, asked LDNA for comment? if so what was their reply, I think we need to look at these results, and the response critically to determine what is going on.

He did get a reply, let me check again, what was said in it, and I will post.
I don't think it is too early to think something is wrong.

Pylsteen
06-27-2017, 09:17 AM
Since they have correctly assigned to some of us Europeans "with colonial ancestry" non-European DNA like East Asian, Native American in amounts below 5%, and I have seen a mixed European/African who indeed got assigned half African, I don't see any reason for why categories like these would not have been assigned for these participants. They have shown they can do it, so there may indeed be an error in this batch.

Cinnamon orange
06-27-2017, 09:20 AM
I suppose it is ok to post the reply they gave him as it is a form letter and he posted it on 23andme:

"We are only able to establish the percentage similarity of your DNA to the population samples available in our reference dataset. Currently, in the family ancestry part of our testing package, we can compare with and report on your ancestry up to 80 Worldwide Regions - Click HERE to view our regional breakdown.

Unfortunately, even our fine-scale algorithm cannot distinguish between some very genetically similar countries. In these cases, we group them into genetically-distinct clusters that often reflect natural geographical boundaries. In order to clearly distinguish results into more specific regions/countries, sample data fulfilling very specific criteria will have to be collected and included in our reference datasets. This is a process that takes years.

Many populations are themselves formed from the mixture of other populations. Our algorithm will attempt to match you directly to a population/region, where we have it in our reference database. If we do not have it/we have a low sample size for a region, or if there is further population structure within that population/region, then we are likely to assign some ancestry to the populations that contributed to that region."

I think they may have fined tuned results based on the POBI study for full British isles descent people but someone who is 63 percent African to show zero African? I think it is ok to question the results.

I won't test with them as I do not want my other European ancestry lumped into British isles, thereby misleading me in my British isles ancestry locales.

Cinnamon orange
06-27-2017, 09:21 AM
Since they have correctly assigned to some of us Europeans "with colonial ancestry" non-European DNA like East Asian, Native American in amounts below 5%, and I have seen a mixed European/African who indeed got assigned half African, I don't see any reason for why categories like these would not have been assigned for these participants. They have shown they can do it, so there may indeed be an error in this batch.

Could be as both users who posted errors got their results around the same time.

06-27-2017, 09:27 AM
Could be as both users who posted errors got their results around the same time.

Thanks for digging that post up Cinnamon orange, well I think this individual should push LDNA a little harder. lets see what Lilac response is.

Dibran
06-27-2017, 12:56 PM
Hi Dibran

Not too sure.

I would think that they would present their information the same fashion for all testers.

The through time feature is three different maps. the British Isles, Europe and the World

I quite like the Europe"age of discovery map" set 500 years in the past. I would imagine in your case the Balkans should be the darkest colored part of the map, with the most dots. The Europe feature should be of most value to you.

I hope that helps.

So the British Isles section. Would that say "balkans through history" or something? Or is that literally only available for them?

I know the other 2 features are included. It's just in sample photos and those posted by people here, it seems it's called British and Irish for everyone. Kind of a shame. Since it's just a feature. Should be for all testers.

Babatunde
06-27-2017, 02:25 PM
Could be as both users who posted errors got their results around the same time.

Hey there, I think there was most definitely an error made in those two instances you cite because I'm 50% Nigerian, 25% Ghanaian, 25% British and LivingDNA gave me results that, if not completely accurate (according to what I have documented), were mostly accurate and relatively in line with the results I've received from 23andMe, AncestryDNA and various GedMatch calculators.

These are my Complete results from LivingDNA:

Africa 75.6%
Yorubaland 61.3%
East Africa 10.7%
Mandinka 3.6%

Europe 21.6%
Great Britain and Ireland 13.2%
South Central England 4.1%
Cornwall 3.8%
Lincolnshire 3.6%
South Yorkshire 1.7%

Europe (North and West) 8.4%
Scandinavia 8.4%

Asia (East) 1.3%
South China 1.3%

Asia (South) 1.5%
Pashtun 1.5%

Fatherline: I-L22
Motherline: L1b1a9

Perhaps LivingDNA has had a problematic batch of results or two or three? Personally, I think they did rather Ok with mine.

Cinnamon orange
06-27-2017, 06:06 PM
Based on the on the one poster with an error here and the African American on 23andme it seems Living DNA is going to look into it and rerun their results. (As in the latest updates I have seen posted).

angscoire
06-27-2017, 10:11 PM
100% European
87.6% British/Irish

Complete %

Northumbria 22.4
Devon 16.5
Aberdeenshire 14
NW Scotland 10.4
Ireland 5.5
SE England 4
East Anglia 3.1
S.Yorks 2.9
Cumbria 2.9
SW Scot/N.Ire 2.3
C. England 1.9
Orkney 1.5
Scandinavia 12.4

Standard %

Northumbria 22.4
Devon 16.5
Aberdeenshire 14
NW Scotland 10.4
Ireland 5.5
SE England 4
SW Scot/N.Ire 2.3
Orkney 1.5
GB/Ire unassigned 10.9
Europe unassigned 12.4

Cautious %

SW Scotland related 40.7
Devon related 20.6
Orkney related 15.5
GB/Ire unassigned 10.9
Europe unassigned 12.4

Ancestry paper trail going back 5 generations (%)

Northumbria 39
Ireland 15.6
NW Scotland 12.5
Aberdeenshire 12.5
SE England 10.9
C England 6.25
SC England 3.12

Overall , a big improvement on an already decent first attempt . Increased Northumbrian and Scottish scores (in line with paper trail) at the expense of genetically similar Ireland (10% reduction) , plus a mix of Central and Southern English regions totalling around 20% (again , matching paper trail) . Very little to complain about .

06-28-2017, 10:50 AM
Don't know if anybody has noticed yet, but there is now a new "Research" participation icon on our results.

FionnSneachta
06-28-2017, 11:27 AM
Don't know if anybody has noticed yet, but there is now a new "Research" participation icon on our results.

This is what I was hoping that they'd do. This could really help their results. I just went into it and it has all the information that I entered to take part in the Irish Research project from before. I'm very pleased with that.

ollie444
06-28-2017, 11:37 AM
This is what I was hoping that they'd do. This could really help their results. I just went into it and it has all the information that I entered to take part in the Irish Research project from before. I'm very pleased with that.

All my information in there too. I'm humming and harring about whether or not to switch my grandmother's birth location to Aberdeenshire from India, given that both her parents were Scottish and born in Scotland. It wouldn't be accurate, but would probably be more helpful for research.

Wing Genealogist
06-28-2017, 11:42 AM
All my information in there too. I'm humming and harring about whether or not to switch my grandmother's birth location to Aberdeenshire from India, given that both her parents were Scottish and born in Scotland. It wouldn't be accurate, but would probably be more helpful for research.

Given that the purpose is genetic genealogy rather than "traditional" paper-trail genealogy, I would also lean towards listing your grandmother's birth location as Aberdeenshire. You may want to contact LivingDNA yourself and explain the situation about your grandmother's birth and see what they suggest. (They may even want to tweak how they are asking the question to ask about our grandparents ethnicity rather than simply their place of birth).

06-28-2017, 12:00 PM
All my information in there too. I'm humming and harring about whether or not to switch my grandmother's birth location to Aberdeenshire from India, given that both her parents were Scottish and born in Scotland. It wouldn't be accurate, but would probably be more helpful for research.

Hi Ollie, I would think that would be a reasonable thing to do.

ollie444
06-28-2017, 02:31 PM
Given that the purpose is genetic genealogy rather than "traditional" paper-trail genealogy, I would also lean towards listing your grandmother's birth location as Aberdeenshire. You may want to contact LivingDNA yourself and explain the situation about your grandmother's birth and see what they suggest. (They may even want to tweak how they are asking the question to ask about our grandparents ethnicity rather than simply their place of birth).


Hi Ollie, I would think that would be a reasonable thing to do.

Thanks, I have now changed it.

simdadams
06-28-2017, 02:37 PM
I have a similar issue with my Indian born brits

Goodman
06-28-2017, 04:36 PM
It wouldn't be any harm emailing them just in case they haven't noticed any issue and think that everyone has complete results. It might make them quicken their pace too.I've received a reply from LivingDNA and they said because I'm originally a DNA Worldwide customer who received the test free from LivingDNA, I may not be eligible for any updates or extra modes. They said they will be sending an email to someone to check if I can get them. I wouldn't mind, I only got the free test from LivingDNA because they kept me waiting so long for my DNA Worldwide results, that as a way of saying sorry, I could have the new test for free. I originally paid £260 for the DNA Worldwide test and it took over a year to get results - so long in fact that I got fed up waiting and ordered a 23andMe test and I got those results within 2 months. Anyway, they won't be able to fob me off with their excuses as I've received emails originally from DNA Worldwide and they gave me an apology and told me that I could test for free with their new LivingDNA test and that I'd receive free updates for life.

sktibo
06-28-2017, 04:38 PM
I've received a reply from LivingDNA and they said because I'm originally a DNA Worldwide customer who received the test free from LivingDNA, I may not be eligible for any updates or extra modes. They said they will be sending an email to someone to check if I can get them. I wouldn't mind, I only got the free test from LivingDNA because they kept me waiting so long for my DNA Worldwide results, that as a way of saying sorry, I could have the new test for free. I originally paid £260 for the DNA Worldwide test and it took over a year to get results - so long in fact that I got fed up waiting and ordered a 23andMe test and I got those results within 2 months. Anyway, they won't be able to fob me off with their excuses as I've received emails originally from DNA Worldwide and they gave me an apology and told me that I could test for free with their new LivingDNA test and that I'd receive free updates for life.

If they can't use your old data you should suggest to them that they send you a swab today and process your DNA over again.

Goodman
06-28-2017, 05:12 PM
If they can't use your old data you should suggest to them that they send you a swab today and process your DNA over again.I tested on their new chip so it's up to date. I've actually swabbed twice for the DNA Worldwide and LivingDNA tests respectively. They sent me a new swab kit free of charge to test on their new chip, for the regional LivingDNA test. (With the promise up free updates for life.)

sktibo
06-28-2017, 05:51 PM
I tested on their new chip so it's up to date. I've actually swabbed twice for the DNA Worldwide and LivingDNA tests respectively. They sent me a new swab kit free of charge to test on their new chip, for the regional LivingDNA test. (With the promise up free updates for life.)

If they don't deliver on their promise I'll help you in whatever small way I can

Goodman
06-28-2017, 07:16 PM
If they don't deliver on their promise I'll help you in whatever small way I canI'll see if they get back to me soon like they said they would or I may have to email them again, much appreciated for your offer of help, cheers. I'll keep posting my experience with them and hopefully they'll sort it out soon.

kingjohn
07-13-2017, 07:26 PM
My new complete mode results
170901709117092

at least they gave you french inline with your part mother roots
rz1706 his half french and they only ave 1.5% truly amazing :\
i think the tuscany is the aschenazi
regards
adam

greerpalmer
07-25-2017, 07:27 PM
Any speculation on an updated ETA for the Irish update as well as other summer releases? Last month I heard end of July, but the official wording I've read is "end of summer" which technically goes through September.

Thanks!

FionnSneachta
07-25-2017, 08:44 PM
Any speculation on an updated ETA for the Irish update as well as other summer releases? Last month I heard end of July, but the official wording I've read is "end of summer" which technically goes through September.

Thanks!

I wouldn't go by any information that hasn't been released recently. Back on the 20th of April it was supposed to be rolled out in eight weeks' time according t this article: https://cruwys.blogspot.ie/2017/04/a-dna-day-sale-at-living-dna-and-news.html

Considering they were expecting an update soon enough, I would hope that it would be updated by the end of the summer but I won't hold my breath. At least going by that article they seem to have collected enough samples. They've probably decided to stop releasing targets that are far in advance because they never seem to meet them so hopefully one day they'll announce the release of an update in a weeks' time or something. I'm just hoping to see my results updated some day when I log in.