PDA

View Full Version : The Good the Bad/Evil the Ugly of testing companies and Star Wars and Competition



laurie
02-16-2015, 07:35 PM
YFull have just sent out this message -

"New feature:
In the YFull Y-Tree http://www.yfull.com/tree/A0-T we have shown an estimation of age for all subclades with at least one Big Y or Y Elite in our database. The algorythm of estimation by SNP count we will explain later in an article written by Dmitriy Adamov, Vladimir Gurianov, Sergey Karzhavin, Vladimir Tagankin, Vadim Urasin."

paulgill
08-19-2015, 11:04 PM
I believe that FTDNA had a contractual agreement surrounding the display and use of the Geno 2 based tree. That started and then the Big-Y SNP tsunami crashed in. FTDNA is now able to update the tree. The new clade issue will continue to be a problem since essentially every new tested lineage is going to define a new clade. As FTDNA moves forward towards integrating new Big-Y results closer to real time we will still have a problem where the tree needs to be modified due to non-FTDNA results. It is not clear that FTDNA will accept tree changes that are based on non-FTDNA data. Right now the initial versions of SNP panels are the only route for those externally derived clades to be placed onto the draft FTDNA tree for confirmation using FTDNA based samples.

FTDNA is not concerned about the yDNA tree but their bottom line, at FTDNA the Almighty Dollar rules, not your concerns.

Wing Genealogist
08-20-2015, 09:51 AM
FTDNA is not concerned about the yDNA tree but their bottom line, at FTDNA the Almighty Dollar rules, not your concerns.

While I am certainly not a shill for FTDNA, I do take exception to what you have stated. I will be the first to say FTDNA is anything but perfect, but I truly believe their prime motivation is to make genetic genealogy testing available to the public, and not simply profit. The company was founded because the CEO (Bennett Greenspan) personally wanted DNA information which he know could be made commercially available, but was not (so he made it available himself). If you take a look at his bio at wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bennett_Greenspan) you will see he had made his money elsewhere, but was interested in genealogy since a teenager.

Running and maintaining a state of the art testing facility does take a LOT of money. They are usually the first g.g. company to purchase new technology, and being the first means they are paying through the nose. Anyone who has taken a tour of the facility marvels at the equipment of the lab.

As I said, the company is anything but perfect, and I sorely wished they spent half as much money on customer service (and educating their staff about their tests) as they do on the technology, but IMHO their prime motive is certainly not profit.

paulgill
08-20-2015, 10:17 AM
While I am certainly not a shill for FTDNA, I do take exception to what you have stated. I will be the first to say FTDNA is anything but perfect, but I truly believe their prime motivation is to make genetic genealogy testing available to the public, and not simply profit. The company was founded because the CEO (Bennett Greenspan) personally wanted DNA information which he know could be made commercially available, but was not (so he made it available himself). If you take a look at his bio at wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bennett_Greenspan) you will see he had made his money elsewhere, but was interested in genealogy since a teenager.

Running and maintaining a state of the art testing facility does take a LOT of money. They are usually the first g.g. company to purchase new technology, and being the first means they are paying through the nose. Anyone who has taken a tour of the facility marvels at the equipment of the lab.

As I said, the company is anything but perfect, and I sorely wished they spent half as much money on customer service (and educating their staff about their tests) as they do on the technology, but IMHO their prime motive is certainly not profit.

I disagree, first money then anything else. Can you tell me why they are removing mtDNA data from Big Y test? Only to sell essentially the same free data again for $199 extra. Tell me which of their test is complete or in anyway cheaper or better than their competition?

Wing Genealogist
08-20-2015, 11:39 AM
I disagree, first money then anything else. Can you tell me why they are removing mtDNA data from Big Y test? Only to sell essentially the same free data again for $199 extra. Tell me which of their test is complete or in anyway cheaper or better than their competition?
While I personally do not agree with FTDNA's decision to scrub the mtDNA data from the Big Y test, I do understand their rationale. They advertised the test as a Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) test for the Y-chromosome. While the raw data does cover the mtDNA, the test was never developed for it, and some individuals (such as myself) do not receive full mtDNA data (mine was among the first batch released). In addition, I do believe there is a possibility of low coverage areas in the mtDNA data, which may result in incorrect calls.

No question that the Big Y test is less complete than the Y-Elite test. However, FTDNA made decisions to cut the cost while still offering a NGS test at a price point which folks would buy. Many folks choose the Big Y over Y Elite primarily due to the difference in cost. Some would say this difference in cost makes the Big Y a "better" test and it certainly is cheaper than their competitor.

GTC
08-20-2015, 11:59 AM
"The current price of our Big Y test is under $600, and like everything else in technology the price will fall or the offering will become larger," said Bennett Greenspan, president of Family Tree DNA, one of the firms that offers Y chromosome sequencing services. "I think the test will become more mainstream as we begin to offer more features that surround the product later this year," he said. "That, along with a somewhat lower price, will likely make it a much more mainstream product next year.

Presumably, "later this year" refers to FTDNA's Annual Conference in November.

https://www.genomeweb.com/sequencing-technology/consumer-genomics-firms-hope-lower-costs-new-features-will-make-y-chromosome

lgmayka
08-20-2015, 01:23 PM
While the raw data does cover the mtDNA, the test was never developed for it, and some individuals (such as myself) do not receive full mtDNA data (mine was among the first batch released). In addition, I do believe there is a possibility of low coverage areas in the mtDNA data, which may result in incorrect calls.
One of the last examples before FTDNA started stripping out mtDNA information has:
1613 no-call
1487 one-read

Eochaidh
08-20-2015, 01:24 PM
As I said, the company is anything but perfect, and I sorely wished they spent half as much money on customer service (and educating their staff about their tests) as they do on the technology, but IMHO their prime motive is certainly not profit.
After maintaining a relative's kit at FTDNA for some time, I took the Geno 2.0 test and transferred it to FTDNA. They showed me as confirmed R-M222. I took the FTDNA STR 111 test and they then showed me as assumed R-M222.

Then I took the Big-Y and it came back confirmed R-M222. The exact instant that my results were available on the web interface, they displayed an ad that for only $119 more, I could test all of these SNPs below M222 to find my terminal SNP. That ad was displayed for many months, and now it lets me select a la carte SNPs.

The problem is that the BAM file for my BigY test was analyzed by several people including Y Full and they all concluded that my true terminal SNP is M222>FGC4078>A725. I did individual tests for FGC4078 and A725 at Y-SEQ (positive) while waiting 6 months for my Big Y. If I did not have the knowledge given to me by others about A725, I would have happily clicked the ad and they would have made an extra $119 for data that I had already paid for.

I contacted support about this and after they learned that I had had my BAM file independently analyzed, they said that they would get back to me. They have not.

Either this was (is) intentional or it was a monstrous programming error. I work as a back-end database Developer so I know how this works. if this was an error, as soon as the first person reported it, it would have been fixed, all money made would have been returned, and probably people fired.

haleaton
08-20-2015, 02:27 PM
One of the last examples before FTDNA started stripping out mtDNA information has:
1613 no-call
1487 one-read

I never compared with my FTDNA Mt Full Sequence, but here is comparison for two NGS data sets:

FGC Y Prime at BGI Lab (2013):
ChrM BAM file size: 3006.42 Kb
Length coverage: 16568 bp (99.99%)
Min depth coverage: 1X
Max depth coverage: 285X
Mean depth coverage: 135.70X
Median depth coverage: 136X
One reading position!: 1
No call: 1 bp

FTDNA Big Y (2014):
ChrM BAM file size: 272.74 Kb
Length coverage: 16542 bp (99.84%)
Min depth coverage: 1X
Max depth coverage: 2578X
Mean depth coverage: 38.20X
Median depth coverage: 16X
One reading position!: 7
No call: 27 bp

I have not re-downloaded my modified Big Y BAM and resubmitted it, say to Y-Full, to see if the data stripping affected anything Y. Mistakes happen. Hope not.

paulgill
08-21-2015, 12:14 AM
While I personally do not agree with FTDNA's decision to scrub the mtDNA data from the Big Y test, I do understand their rationale. They advertised the test as a Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) test for the Y-chromosome. While the raw data does cover the mtDNA, the test was never developed for it, and some individuals (such as myself) do not receive full mtDNA data (mine was among the first batch released). In addition, I do believe there is a possibility of low coverage areas in the mtDNA data, which may result in incorrect calls.

No question that the Big Y test is less complete than the Y-Elite test. However, FTDNA made decisions to cut the cost while still offering a NGS test at a price point which folks would buy. Many folks choose the Big Y over Y Elite primarily due to the difference in cost. Some would say this difference in cost makes the Big Y a "better" test and it certainly is cheaper than their competitor.

I also understand FTDNA rationale to remove mtDNA data, say it cost them $1.99 to remove the data, but the Full mtDNA Sequencing brings $199, 100 times more money to them.

FTDNA has not decrease the cost of Big Y to its consumers but increased it by $199 by removing that data.

Now compare Y Elite 2.0 total cost= $750.00, better read length 250bp

Big Y cost $575+$199 mtDNA+ $50.00 intrepretation+lower coverage and lower quality, total=$824, read length only 100bp

VinceT
08-21-2015, 12:40 AM
I also understand FTDNA rationale to remove mtDNA data, say it cost them $1.99 to remove the data, but the Full mtDNA Sequencing brings $199, 100 times more money to them.

FTDNA has not decrease the cost of Big Y to its consumers but increased it by $199 by removing that data.

Now compare Y Elite 2.0 total cost= $750.00, better read length 250bp

Big Y cost $575+$199 mtDNA+ $50.00 intrepretation+lower coverage and lower quality, total=$824, read length only 100bp

FTDNA's Full mtDNA Sequencing product was designed to sequence mtDNA accurately and completely.

Big-Y was not. Big-Y captures mtDNA data as a by-product (as does FGC's Y-Elite), but it was never meant to replace or substitute the FMS pipeline. Big-Y (or FGC's Y-Elite) simply does not provide the data quality required to supply a highly confident consensus sequence, especially if it is used - or will be used - in any credible scientific study, and submitted to GenBank. (Not necessarily in that order). Unfortunately, some Big-Y customers (and possibly some FGC customers) have done exactly that.

So, for the sake of credible citizen science, please stop yer griping already.

paulgill
08-21-2015, 01:01 AM
FTDNA's Full mtDNA Sequencing product was designed to sequence mtDNA accurately and completely.

Big-Y was not. Big-Y captures mtDNA data as a by-product (as does FGC's Y-Elite), but it was never meant to replace or substitute the FMS pipeline. Big-Y (or FGC's Y-Elite) simply does not provide the data quality required to supply a highly confident consensus sequence, especially if it is used - or will be used - in any credible scientific study, and submitted to GenBank. (Not necessarily in that order). Unfortunately, some Big-Y customers (and possibly some FGC customers) have done exactly that.

So, for the sake of credible citizen science, please stop yer griping already.

But the mtDNA does not mutate so frequently as the yDNA and the data from Y Elite 2.0 is good for 99% of the customers.

VinceT
08-21-2015, 04:12 AM
But the mtDNA does not mutate so frequently as the yDNA and the data from Y Elite 2.0 is good for 99% of the customers.

??? An apples vs. oranges comparison. I'm tempted to post a "Your argument is invalid" meme here.

TigerMW
08-21-2015, 01:31 PM
:\ It seems like any thread that starts into any specific DNA testing discussions brings out the proponents and adversaries of various testing companies.

That's okay, but let us not distract from the topics of the threads and bring the "Star Wars" of testing company advocates over to this thread where we can have knock and down drag out fights... and those who are interested can tune in and those wgi aren't can tune out.

I'll facilitate this by moving off-topic posts to this thread.

Mac von Frankfurt
08-21-2015, 02:47 PM
My perspective is from someone who started with 23andMe and is now looking to further explore my Y-DNA line. My goal is to garner an understanding of the testing options for my haplogroup and then encourage others from 23andMe to take the plunge into further Y-DNA testing. We are lucky in R1b-L21 to now have two panel options; one from FTDNA and one from YSEQ. I am perfectly happy with YSEQ up to this point. But if someone was more comfortable embarking onto the mother ship I would certainly encourage them to do so particularly if they wanted their matches to come to them rather than have to search through projects on their own to find them.

23andMe is a good value for an autosomal DNA test and you get the Y-DNA as a bonus. Then some type of panel makes a good bridge to deeper subclades and a smaller project. After that it is either BigY or FGC. A leap from 23andMe to FGC is a bit extreme but would be fine for some projects (such as M222) that are used to combining data from multiple platforms. And yes, at some point, you have to pick up some STRs to correlate with the thousands of people in the legacy databases who may never get another test.

So in conclusion I see the various companies as synergistic and while I am comfortable being out in the cold for now I can see why many if not most people would choose FTDNA.

paulgill
08-25-2015, 06:06 PM
Although my big Y coverage of mtDNA is 100% per YFull statistics, it does not equal my mtDNA full sequence at FTDNA, some insert and indel can't 100% accurate, so you can't caculate $199 of the mtDNA part of these NGS Y sequence!


True but you get over 400 STRs with Y Elite 2.0. It will be interesting to see how many of the standard 111 STRs are quality results from FGC.

Most of them were good at 100bp read lenght. Y Elite 2.0 read length will make quality and accuracy much better. Now remember those 111 STRs, they cost another $359.00 at FTDNA. Again 111 STRs are not a must, why compare 111 when you can compare 400, for accuracy, bad ones can just be removed or ignored, without affecting the accuracy of the results.

paulgill
08-25-2015, 06:36 PM
my bigy doesnt contain any mtdna reads, not very relevant to me but would be a nice extra


FTDNA now removes that data even when it costs them money, because customers stopped buying Full mtDNA Sequencing as they were getting it for free with Big Y, they now want you to buy it for $199 more. But you can still get a better version of it from Full Genomes Y Elite 2.0 and WGS for free.

TigerMW
08-25-2015, 06:40 PM
I have to say I enjoy the StarWars/StarTrek theme even though I didn't think it up. It adds color and fun to what sometimes can be mundane and detail oriented. As far I know, the StarWars/Evil Empire theme started with Thomas Krahn's summer marketing campaign of years past.

Today I faced the Wrath of Krahn over on the R1b-L21-project yahoo group as apparently he does not like the R1b-M343 Backbone SNP Pack.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbL1bD2lRkQ
:)

Thomas has posted on this forum so maybe he'll join in. It's all okay. There are different choices and people can make their own decisions but it always good to have the competition and the choices.

lgmayka
09-25-2015, 11:20 PM
​It's also ironic that FTDNA is actually the one putting out tests that won't pay off well, i.e. the Haplogroup N SNP Pack.
Actually, the N SNP Pack may be a moneymaker. The Finland project (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Finland?iframe=ysnp) is shockingly large and active.

miiser
09-26-2015, 12:21 AM

It's also ironic that FTDNA is actually the one putting out tests that won't pay off well, i.e. the Haplogroup N SNP Pack.

Mike, you know better than to make that claim. Here's FTDNA's explicitly stated policy regarding SNP offerings: "In accepting requested Y-SNPs for addition to the Advanced Orders Page, we are now only accepting SNPs that would likely be ordered several hundreds times within a year."

The stance is reasonable and expected of a for-profit business. But don't pretend this isn't their policy. FTNDA only offers tests that they believe will be purchased often enough to cover the development and supply cost and still make a profit.

TigerMW
09-26-2015, 05:43 PM
Mike, you know better than to make that claim. Here's FTDNA's explicitly stated policy regarding SNP offerings: "In accepting requested Y-SNPs for addition to the Advanced Orders Page, we are now only accepting SNPs that would likely be ordered several hundreds times within a year."

The stance is reasonable and expected of a for-profit business. But don't pretend this isn't their policy. FTNDA only offers tests that they believe will be purchased often enough to cover the development and supply cost and still make a profit.
Please go back to the "gaffe" thread and read it. I followed up on that statement and the higher level management does not say that at all. That was truly a gaffe by a lower level employee.

However, they are adding fewer SNPs to their Advance Tests catalog so the general concept of trying to estimate a market for each individual SNP is in play.

Now, back to the credibility stuff and claims. That's not my claim about haplogroup N. That's FTDNA's. I shouldn't say they would never make any money on haplogroup N SNPs, so I'll take that back. I am saying that FTDNA says they are more likely to accept SNPs with small estimated potential where the haplogroup is rare... in other words, they don't want to leave smaller haplogroups out in the cold. We can all make our own judgements but I took them at their word for it.
The hg N example was given to me by FTDNA back when I inquired at timeframe of the "gaffe" discussion.

MacUalraig
09-26-2015, 06:24 PM
The intent for the big L21 and R1b yahoo groups is to be fairly public, but the L513 group is much smaller and people there use their full names more. I think the privacy expectation is higher as some of the discussion is intra-family branching. We do have NPEs and the like.

Please read post #296. I started up a thread for you and its now active.

As regards your L513 forum you should re-read the unchallenged/unmoderated post #6124 (which I saved a full copy of at the time of posting), to which I appear to not have a right of reply. I'd say I have good reason to monitor the forum. That post contains wildly inaccurate statements of fact about me.

Now back to thread splitting and moving and please answer the main point which was why your '343 backbone snp pack FTDNA' doesn't count as a commercial plug for ftdna and get moved to the Commercial section. I think you need to have a good hard think about your habit of intervening as a moderator in threads you are a debater in. Particularly since you already have a stated policy elsewhere of banning people for customer complaints ['about FTDNA' taken as read].

TigerMW
09-26-2015, 07:14 PM
This is not ironic. There are two separate issues here.

1. For an individual who has already done an STR test (and targeted SNP testing as warranted by the STR test outcome), are they likely to learn anything new and significant regarding their family history from a NGS test? Will the information they gain justify the expense? For many people (but not all), the answer to this question is "no". NGS is not always a smart investment for the customer, even if they can afford it.
Everyone has to make their own decisions but that does not mean NGS tests are not needed for true genetic genealogy. To say otherwise when giving advice, is not ethical, in my opinion.

Please go find and read my Lewis and Clark Analogy. Every genealogical family should get an NGS test. I'm not saying that is practical or going to happen overnight or anything like that but we need for true genetic genealogy on the Y line.

What's ironic is to say most can't afford NGS testing but then to advocate YFull without the adding the disclaimer (for NGS wealthy elite testers only - yes, I am being sarcastic so I'll apologize on the front end.)



2. For a person who DOES decide to spend big money on NGS, for whatever reason, what is the best investment, the most informative path, and the best option for intelligent data analysis and tree management?
Since I'm in P312 on three different lineages, I like Alex Willliamson's Big Tree. It's not the end all and its also free. I think R1a guys would have a different answer.

For interpretations, I like FGC because they are have very strong R1b expertise and I think Dr. Magoon is as good as it gets. I feel comfortable that he will not stretch any interpretations and apply scientific rigor.

None of that is to say YFull isn't good or very good. I've never said they were bad although there people who complain about things like their STR calls and their propensity for redundant SNP naming.

Let's save your next couple of paragraphs, miiser, until Monday. I don't think they belong in this thread. It's really kind of Star Wars stuff, good versus evil, etc., etc. I don't think Darth Vader was motivated by control ambitions, though. I don't think I can qualify as the Emperor. Only one can be that. Han Solo probably wouldn't even care.

TigerMW
09-26-2015, 07:20 PM
This was posted on another thread that seems a little off topic so I'll move the quote here and address it under world of Star Wars as the assignment of motivation, good and evil is at play.

BTW, it was in reply to me so I assume I'm the Darth Vader of the situation.

....

Since the discussion has already strayed into the subject of the motives behind test recommendations -

It seems apparent that the motivation, among some project administrators, for promoting FTDNA is that they are in a position of authority to see, analyze, and control all the data when testers stay within the FTDNA bubble. When individuals stray outside of this system, the administrators who relish this position of authority lose that control. There is nothing ironic about it, but it is an obvious and noteworthy private agenda that factors into which services are recommended by administrators. It then becomes a question not of which service is better for the customer, but of which service is better for the administrator.

You recommend NGS testing because YOU want to see the data. You recommend NGS testing specifically through FTDNA and tree management through Alex because this keeps the data within your sphere of influence. Saying repeatedly that it's a "team sport" doesn't hide the fact that you are recommending the course of action which favors your private agenda.

I'll respond on Monday or Tuesday. I have other priorities this weekend.:beerchug:

I think I'll have the proper perspective after a couple. My guess is that good and evil is like beauty and is in the eye beholder.

TigerMW
09-26-2015, 07:34 PM
As regards your L513 forum you should re-read the unchallenged/unmoderated post #6124 (which I saved a full copy of at the time of posting), to which I appear to not have a right of reply. I'd say I have good reason to monitor the forum. That post contains wildly inaccurate statements of fact about me.

This is it. I didn't respond at all and I don't think anyone did. The post is from a member of your surname project, not me. Should I have arrested him?


Mike, Ian Kennedy did a study with the snp package that familytree put together for him. he found a few snps shared with about 3 surnames from southwest Scotland and now he claims that R-M222 kennedys come from Southwest Scotland. Maybe but giving the fact that 12 Percent of Scotland and Ireland is R-m222 it looks pretty weak to me. I think he copied what the 513 combo group study.


Now back to thread splitting and moving and please answer the main point which was why your '343 backbone snp pack FTDNA' doesn't count as a commercial plug for ftdna and get moved to the Commercial section. I think you need to have a good hard think about your habit of intervening as a moderator in threads you are a debater in. Particularly since you already have a stated policy elsewhere of banning people for customer complaints ['about FTDNA' taken as read].
I hope you noted that the M343 Backbone Pack was started in the R1b General category by Joe B, not me. It seems reasonable, though. We have FGC results tracking for L21 in the L21 category. We could have YSEQ R1b threads to in the R1b category. I don't see any harm in that. We've an big FGC thread out in the general category of this whole forum.

Why do people want to slide in off topic on their favorites vendors. If it is adding value to the topic, okay... but just general selling I don't get. Start your own thread. It's easy.

lgmayka
09-26-2015, 08:44 PM
The hg N example was given to me by FTDNA back when I inquired at timeframe of the "gaffe" discussion.
Even if FTDNA said that, and even if it is true in a literal sense, it was a sound business decision based on the tremendous support Finland has given FTDNA (and vice-versa) over the years. In regard to Finland, FTDNA apparently (and rightly) takes the attitude, "Give the lady what she wants! (http://www.amazon.com/Give-Lady-What-She-Wants/dp/0897080203)"

lgmayka
09-26-2015, 08:59 PM
What's ironic is to say most can't afford NGS testing but then to advocate YFull without the adding the disclaimer (for NGS wealthy elite testers only - yes, I am being sarcastic so I'll apologize on the front end.)
Apparently I need to say this again: It is not "irony" but sensitivity (and prudence) to make different recommendations depending on a project member's budget, needs, interests, and other circumstances. It is truly great that some people are willing and able to spend the money to build a reliable haplotree through their full-Y testing and YFull analysis. That is what has gotten us where we are today! But it is a fact that the vast majority of DNA testers are unable or unwilling to do so. Luckily, some of the latter are at least willing to order a SNP pack if it is available.

A small economics lesson here: Most technological advances are initially marketed to the wealthy. Only later do those benefits (hopefully!) become available to the upper middle class, then to the lower middle class, and then finally to the poor. Essentially, the upper economic classes pay for the R&D and the infrastructure; once that is accomplished, the lower classes are then required to pay only the incremental costs. But of course, it is rather insulting to prematurely tell the less advantaged that they need the latest and greatest thing without giving them the means to pay for it--akin to the infamous "Let them eat cake (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_them_eat_cake)."

Another economics lesson: Not every country is as wealthy as the United States. Here is the 2014 GDP per capita of various countries (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD) (in US$):
Norway - 97,363
United States - 54,629
United Kingdom - 45,603
Italy - 34,960
Greece - 21,682
Slovakia - 18,416
Lithuania - 16,444
Poland - 14,422
Belarus - 8,040
Ukraine - 3,082

TigerMW
09-26-2015, 09:27 PM
Obviously insincere apology not accepted.

Apparently I need to say this again: It is not "irony" but sensitivity (and prudence) to make different recommendations depending on a project member's budget, needs, interests, and other circumstances. It is truly great that some people are willing and able to spend the money to build a reliable haplotree through their full-Y testing and YFull analysis. That is what has gotten us where we are today! But it is a fact that the vast majority of DNA testers are unable or unwilling to do so. Luckily, some of the latter are at least willing to order a SNP pack if it is available.
I agree with you 100% that each project member has different goals and circumstances. That is why when someone asks for testing recommendations on some of these forums I often comment "it depends" or ask "what are your goals?"

However, if someone is really interested in genetic genealogy, and I think most are; then we owe it to them to be straight that NGS testing is required on the Y paternal lineage side.

It is not straight to let people assume they are making family connections by chasing "known" SNPs in most cases. That is really just testing other people's SNPs. The only way to get into true genetic genealogy is to discover your lineage of SNPs. Someone from your genealogical family must participate for this to happen.

If more people understood this, I think we'd see more pooling of resources which is a cool thing that project donations can facilitate. We need more pooling of resources at the surname and genealogical family levels to bring NGS into budgetary range.

It is a fact, though, this is a hobby not an entitlement. Not everyone can afford this.


A small economics lesson here: Most technological advances are initially marketed to the wealthy. Only later do those benefits (hopefully!) become available to the upper middle class, then to the lower middle class, and then finally to the poor. But of course, it is rather insulting to prematurely tell the less advantaged that they need the latest the greatest thing (without giving them the means to pay for it)--akin to the infamous "Let them eat cake (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_them_eat_cake)."

Another economics lesson: Not every country is as wealthy as the United States. Here is the 2014 GDP per capita of various countries (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD) (in US$):
United States - 54,629
United Kingdom - 45,603
Italy - 34,960
Greece - 21,682
Lithuania - 16,444
Poland - 14,422
Ukraine - 3,082
Thank you for the Economics 101 lesson. I think this is the kind of stuff that belongs in the Good, Bad, the Ugly Star Wars thread. I don't know if you are saying there are economic system issues and/or inequality issues at work, but that is kind of a good and evil thing which generally smacks of politics.

lgmayka
09-26-2015, 11:10 PM
However, if someone is really interested in genetic genealogy, and I think most are; then we owe it to them to be straight that NGS testing is required on the Y paternal lineage side.
Correction: Most would be if they had Y-DNA matches within a genealogical timeframe, but in my project the majority do not (yet). And the imposition of an expensive "requirement" is an effective way to scare many people away from this hobby entirely.

I think this is the kind of stuff that belongs in the Good, Bad, the Ugly Star Wars thread. I don't know if you are saying there are economic system issues and/or inequality issues at work, but that is kind of a good and evil thing which generally smacks of politics.
You totally misunderstood me yet again, and are apparently attributing to me various bizarre ulterior motives. This is especially alarming in view of your authority in this forum. My simple point is that very different income levels produce very different ideas of affordability with respect to DNA testing. There are people in the world besides Americans.

miiser
09-27-2015, 03:47 AM
​Sensibly, their tree is based on NGS testing, but some who advocate YFull think NGS testing is too expensive and not practical for everyone. That seems a bit ironic.

In the spirit of the established moderating standards, I humbly request that the moderators move this comment to the Good, Bad, the Ugly Star Wars thread, as it appears to be an implied questioning of the motives of certain commenters. Or are double standards a thing here now?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

TigerMW
09-27-2015, 07:57 AM
Correction: Most would be if they had Y-DNA matches within a genealogical timeframe, but in my project the majority do not (yet). And the imposition of an expensive "requirement" is an effective way to scare many people away from this hobby entirely.

You totally misunderstood me yet again, and are apparently attributing to me various bizarre ulterior motives. This is especially alarming in view of your authority in this forum. My simple point is that very different income levels produce very different ideas of affordability with respect to DNA testing. There are people in the world besides Americans.
I stand by that most are interested in genetic genealogy.

Agreed that there are various income levels but that does not change the requirements in testing to meet genetic genealogy goals for those who desire that. What does income inequality have to do with meeting a goal? The goal is the goal. Those who don't have the means may have to adjust their goals. It is not bad or good but just is.

I am just saying we should be honest about that. Chasing other peoples SNPa doesn't get us there.

miiser
09-27-2015, 08:50 PM
I'd also point out some of Mike's choice comments from this thread:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5027-R1b-M343-Backbone-SNP-Pack-FTDNA/page9



I guess some of this depends on your agreement or disagreement with evolution, but the difficulty of a calculation does not make the requirement any less important.

You appear to be assigning motives and accusing me of being biased because of my religion here, by implying that I don't believe in evolution. And then later in the same comment, you assign motives by suggesting that I am a communist.


I know there are some who don't like free enterprise but it has served the world well, IMHO. I don't think it is a dirty word. I agree more competition is always better, though. Monopolies are bad.



In several of the threads you started within the past week, in response to other people's arguments you have used your moderator editing power to retroactively revise your original post in order to make an under-the-radar change of content. You have done this well after the standard 24 hour editing period had passed. Yet you did not point out those edits to the public or explain the reason for the edit, as you typically do when you edit other people's comments.

You seem very eager to wield the moderator editing power and rule enforcement when it comes to limiting the comments of people who disagree with you, but not so much when it comes to your own comments or those of people you agree with. I question whether it's within your character to be an impartial moderator.

TigerMW
09-29-2015, 02:02 AM
This was posted on another thread that seems a little off topic so I'll move the quote here and address it under world of Star Wars as the assignment of motivation, good and evil is at play.

BTW, it was in reply to me so I assume I'm the Darth Vader of the situation.

....
Since the discussion has already strayed into the subject of the motives behind test recommendations -

It seems apparent that the motivation, among some project administrators, for promoting FTDNA is that they are in a position of authority to see, analyze, and control all the data when testers stay within the FTDNA bubble. When individuals stray outside of this system, the administrators who relish this position of authority lose that control. There is nothing ironic about it, but it is an obvious and noteworthy private agenda that factors into which services are recommended by administrators. It then becomes a question not of which service is better for the customer, but of which service is better for the administrator.

You recommend NGS testing because YOU want to see the data. You recommend NGS testing specifically through FTDNA and tree management through Alex because this keeps the data within your sphere of influence. Saying repeatedly that it's a "team sport" doesn't hide the fact that you are recommending the course of action which favors your private agenda.

....
I'll respond on Monday or Tuesday. I have other priorities this weekend.:beerchug:

I think I'll have the proper perspective after a couple. My guess is that good and evil is like beauty and is in the eye beholder.

You are talking about me, right?

If you are, please answer my questions, misser.

1. What good is this doing me? that you accuse of me, "You recommend NGS testing because YOU want to see the data".
1a. You are not saying that NGS testing is not of value to the tester, are you? If so, please explain.

2. How do you think I look at this data? You must have some idea to think I am receiving this private agenda value?

3. What priority do you think I place looking at this NGS data first?

You seem to know.

4. Please explain what my "private agenda" is? The word "private" means it is hidden. Generally, unless I would be breaking a confidentiality, I'll explain what I do and why, but first answer my questions so I can understand your accusations with specificity.

A person who makes accusations should be able to be specific and to answer questions about their accusations.

All; please let miiser answer for himself. No tag teaming. If someone else has different accusations, they should be specific as well but make your own accusations. We don't need re-interpretations of interpretations. Psychology is hard enough as it is.

miiser
09-29-2015, 03:53 AM
You are talking about me, right?

If you are, please answer my questions, misser.

1. What good is this doing me? that you accuse of me, "You recommend NGS testing because YOU want to see the data".
1a. You are not saying that NGS testing is not of value to the tester, are you? If so, please explain.

2. How do you think I look at this data? You must have some idea to think I am receiving this private agenda value?

3. What priority do you think I place looking at this NGS data first?

You seem to know.

4. Please explain what my "private agenda" is? The word "private" means it is hidden. Generally, unless I would be breaking a confidentiality, I'll explain what I do and why, but first answer my questions so I can understand your accusations with specificity.

A person who makes accusations should be able to be specific and to answer questions about their accusations.

All; please let miiser answer for himself. No tag teaming. If someone else has different accusations, they should be specific as well but make your own accusations. We don't need re-interpretations of interpretations. Psychology is hard enough as it is.

I speak to and of any poster to whom the following statement applies.

In short, I think it is unjust for any poster or moderator to repeatedly imply impure or commercial motives in the comments of those who disagree with them, and to moderate the comments accordingly, while refusing to acknowledge the motives within their own comments or of those whom they agree with. The purpose of my post was to point out a motive among FTDNA proponents that had not been previously acknowledged, but which is fairly transparent to most readers of this forum. When ulterior motives are implied by one party, it is fair and important that the motives of the opposite party be acknowledged as well.

In a poster, the failure to acknowledge ones own bias is simply embarrassing. In a moderator, it is shameful and it impugns the neutrality of the debate forum. I decline to further respond to your specific questions in a forum where the Inquisitioner has complete control to edit or move my own comments at will, to retroactively edit their own comments in response to my counterarguments in order to render their side in a more favorable light, and a demonstrated willingness and eagerness to do so.

TigerMW
09-29-2015, 03:57 AM
I speak to and of any poster to whom the following statement applies.

In short, I think it is unjust for any poster or moderator to repeatedly imply impure or commercial motives in the comments of those who disagree with them, and to moderate the comments accordingly, while refusing to acknowledge the motives within their own comments or of those whom they agree with. The purpose of my post was to point out a motive among FTDNA proponents that had not been previously acknowledged, but which is fairly transparent to most readers of this forum. When ulterior motives are implied by one party, it is fair and important that the motives of the opposite party be acknowledged as well.

In a poster, the failure to acknowledge ones own bias is simply embarrassing. In a moderator, it is shameful and it impugns the neutrality of the debate forum. I decline to further respond to your specific questions in a forum where the Inquisitioner has complete control to edit or move my own comments at will, to retroactively edit their own comments in response to my counterarguments in order to render their side in a more favorable light, and a demonstrated willingness and eagerness to do so.

You don't answer questions and you aren't very specific. This is not much to have a discussion on. If you are just publicly registering a complaint, okay, so be it. Maybe we should talk about something important.

TigerMW
10-01-2015, 03:15 AM
In the spirit of the established moderating standards, I humbly request that the moderators move this comment to the Good, Bad, the Ugly Star Wars thread, as it appears to be an implied questioning of the motives of certain commenters. Or are double standards a thing here now?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Per your wishes, I moved the things out of the YFull thread over here where they are more on topic.

Some of the posts were a little hard to classify, but if it didn't at least mention YFull I moved it over here.

TigerMW
10-16-2015, 10:23 PM
It's been interesting couple of weeks as there have been some disturbances in the force. I've come to realize the force is real but in the minds of those who use the force for good, they think of it as real "research" and probably just helping friends. Those are good things.

On the other side of the coin, the coin side, we are seeing better products and lower prices in fixed SNP packs and panels. I've said this would happen a number of times over the past year. I wasn't kidding as that was the pattern set last year within a few L21 subclades. It's all good.

I just hope the hoopla does not detract focus from NGS testing. We've had a good two weeks of new Big Y orders along with new results in L21 so I think we'll keep marching. Alex's Big Tree has been a wonderful way for people to see how new NGS results seem to both add new and more youthful branches... and break up phylogenetic equivalent blocks. It happens a lot. Think of it, many of the blocks identified are only marked by a handful of NGS tested people depending on the subclade. A handful is not much to predict a long lived phylogenetic equivalent situation. ... which brings us back to competition.

The FTDNA SNP Packs test everyone in one fell swoop so phylogenetic equivalents can be included to validate/cross-validate and attempt to break up phylogenetic blocks. There is no dependency on tree traversing one at a time SNP testing. The all in one swoop approach is a true advantage although some within the force think it is a waste... of what I don't know of what except maybe FTDNA costs... but I don't care about that anyway. The more you get can into a package for the same price, the better.

TigerMW
12-19-2015, 04:30 AM
I felt obliged to post something on this in honor of the opening of the latest Star Wars movie today.

I do feel an awakening in the Force. However, the Evil Empire has just too many big parts cranking away. They just need a little shove here and there to get things done in the proper areas. I still like Han Solo, but since Harrison Ford is 73 I just don't see him being that dashing anymore.

samirchergui
01-24-2016, 10:02 PM
i love star wars