PDA

View Full Version : Extremely disappointed in my dad's Geno 2.0 NG results.



wombatofthenorth
04-09-2016, 08:47 PM
I can't believe it, but for all of their talk about having added so many new mtDNA and Y-DNA haplogroup SNP tests, supposedly bringing it to fully up to date mtDNA and getting close to current complete Y-SNP results instead my dad's results came back less detailed than his old test from them!! Not only did they not test more SNPs for him, they tested less!!!!!!!!!!

They haven't updated anything at all either.

He actually was provided more general results and even less maps and background info than he had been with the old test!

leo76
04-09-2016, 08:59 PM
Disappointing, true. Sorry to hear that!

But Devil's Advocate: Part of science is sometimes realizing that, "Oh man, we overstated things before. Now that we have more data, we have to walk things back and be a bit more general." I'm not an expert, but the more I hear, the more I think this has happened with Next Gen. For example it could be that a particular set of SNPs that they previously thought indicated certain regional ancestry associations, now seem not to support that hypothesis. So instead of being more precise, they've actually had to rework things in that case to be more broad, based on where the data led them. This is just a hypothetical, but it sometimes happens in science. And this is an example of GOOD science, not bad.

But again, just hypothetical Devil's Advocate.

wombatofthenorth
04-09-2016, 09:18 PM
I don't think so, since, for instance, not just the older test but also 23 and James Lick mtDNA tool gives me more detail than the new test. He went from V3 to just V. One would have hoped instead it would have gone from V3 to say V3c or something, if not more.
And the Y result is just the same or less than all the old tests gave.

wombatofthenorth
04-09-2016, 09:19 PM
I bet he had a ton of miscalls and instead of re-running it they just handed out these feeble results. 23 is known for being out of date for halplogroups and even they gave more detail than his new test.

leo76
04-09-2016, 09:24 PM
Yeah, I don't know. I look forward to the next year or so as more Next Gen results come out so we can have a clearer picture of what might have happened. Since Next Gen has only been available since Aug 2015 and it takes roughly 3 months to get results, we only have about 5 months of results from anyone anywhere in the world to talk about! And so far not many people are talking yet.

So far you and I and a few others are sort of scratching our heads in a vague darkness.

wombatofthenorth
04-09-2016, 10:13 PM
Man, I did the basic FTDNA transfer (not the full) and it out and out shows that they tested more SNPs for R-L20 on the old kit than with the new one! The new test has less results that came back positive/negative than the old one! How can that be with all their talk about radically expanding Y-haplogroup SNPs!

wombatofthenorth
04-09-2016, 10:46 PM
For mtDNA they don't even test for V1,V2,V3, etc. now! Much less break say V3 down into sub-groups! All they give you is a V! That's worse than the old test and even 23 which hasn't even tried to update haplogroups in years!

leo76
04-09-2016, 11:33 PM
Yeah, something weird is going on here. But I'm prepared to be a little patient (even if I shouldn't have to be): with Geno 2.0 First Gen, as you'll recall, they recalibrated the haplogroup assignments at least once long after they had already started selling kits and posting results. Maybe they're still "getting their act together".

wombatofthenorth
04-10-2016, 12:32 AM
Yeah, something weird is going on here. But I'm prepared to be a little patient (even if I shouldn't have to be): with Geno 2.0 First Gen, as you'll recall, they recalibrated the haplogroup assignments at least once long after they had already started selling kits and posting results. Maybe they're still "getting their act together".

I hope but not even getting V split to the next level is seems so basic! The old test already had the full next level plus parts of the next level after that!
I only did Geno 2.0 last year so I never witnessed the recalibration. Did they actually send people a few levels deeper?

leo76
04-10-2016, 01:12 AM
I only did Geno 2.0 last year so I never witnessed the recalibration. Did they actually send people a few levels deeper?

Yes, if I recall correctly. At first they had my mtDNA at something very broad like K1, and then recalibrated it to K1a15. Or maybe I'm getting confused... Maybe it was the yDNA... Maybe they took me from R-P312 all the way down to R-Z295. Sorry, my memory's not great. I might be mixing up FTDNA and Geno 2.0. What I do know is that Geno 2.0 DID recalibrate my results as part of a broader project-wide reanalysis at least once, giving me more high-resolution assignments. That much I'm certain of.

So there's hope that this mess will get untangled.

wombatofthenorth
04-12-2016, 12:07 AM
Some of the issues are down to the confusing nature in that FTDNA only marks some Y SNPs that are negative as negative and marks the others as if they were not tested! So you can't take a quick look at the tree they show and see what sub-SNPs are under your main SNP, such as L20. They mark some as taken and negative and some that were taken and negative as not taken. Even more strangely it seems like they marked BY2171+ as either negative or not taken (unless they have found out the SNP is bad or needs to be read as if it were a - strand? so even though according to ISOGG SNP Lookup the value would be positive for the SNP maybe it really is negative? but why do they fail to list all SNPs taken under your main level like L20 as negative and just mostly pretend like they were not taken and offer them for purchase and just sprinkle in a few here and there as negative?).

wombatofthenorth
06-10-2016, 11:38 PM
turns out he is negative, the strand needs the raw data to be read as negative strand for that SNP, so the RAW data was misleading but the results give on GENO 2.0 NG and FTDNA were correct.

wombatofthenorth
06-11-2016, 04:11 AM
For first time testers though they do provide a lot more background info on haplos than 23 or FTDNA and a lot more background info on AC than MyOrigins (and more accurate maps too). It's a good test for new testers or someone who has only tested at 23 and/or Ancestry. Personally I think it's a better way to start than FamilyFinder from FTDNA (unless all you care about it matching and nothing more, then FF is best since it's the cheapest of all, well Ancestry is cheap too and might be as good or better for that for those with long colonial or lots of UK ancestry). As an upgrade for Geno 2.0 users, the AC is fine and different but the haplo stuff appears to barely offer anything new for anyone and, for some, even less, though.

wombatofthenorth
07-12-2016, 01:53 AM
as an upgrade from Geno 2.0 it's been an utter bust for my dad. It has less detailed mtDNA results for him than Geno 2.0 and the same for y-haplo. The admixture gives the exact same result in terms of numbers as the much less expensive FF would have been and worse, FTDNA bugged up his transfer account and made it incompatible with being able to show any FF matches so he gets zero FF matches even after full transfer.

My mom's transfer was OK in that she get entry to FF and it's nice to see the nicer maps and all the reference results and extra details Geno 2.0 NG gives compared to FamilyFinder so for her the upgrade was fine.

But since my dad could already see all the extra info with maps and references from my mom he literally got NOTHING for the extra cost. For $79 instead of $149 he would have gotten more since FF matches would have worked at least. Kind of disgusted at Geno for barely testing his mtDNA V group at all on the new test and for FTDNA for incompetently bugging up half their programs and making FF transfer show nothing with no clue why it shows nothing. For him to get into FF database he'd have to end up spending $149+$79 now!!!! insane.

As a non-upgrade it's great.

As a non-upgrade if you also want matching it's probably great but sadly FTDNA is so messed up you never know if you will be one of the unlucky ones where they bug up the transfer and make FF fail or not.

As an upgrade it depends. I could see doing one family member and it may be pretty cool in that case but definitely not more than one as an upgrade. And for the one, if you also care about matching, you just have to hope FTDNA bugs in their FF and transfer and account creation system don't mess you over. For my mom is was fine. For my dad not.

wombatofthenorth
07-12-2016, 01:54 AM
Maybe in a few more weeks or months they will figure out my dad's FF account bugs and make it work and it won't have been as much of a waste for him, but even so FamilyFinder as his upgrade would've honestly given him just as much and much more quickly it seems since, again, the other extra he could see from my mom's account and he got not one new haplogroup bit of info at all compared to the old Geno 2.0.

wombatofthenorth
07-16-2016, 03:55 AM
I think, I hope at least, but it seems like maybe if they hit the weird transfer bug that they then run a FamilyFinder test to eventually get into the database since the time frame for completion seems to be along those lines.

It still seems like a very curious bug FTDNA has. I bet it's nothing to do with the data or main FamilyFinder algorithms but some sort of memory over run with some structure they use to store Geno transfers or something since the raw data works fine in other matching software and so on.

wombatofthenorth
07-19-2016, 12:04 AM
OK, it seems like FTDNA can get around the bug so no worries about full transfers into FTDNA FamilyFinder database. It all works now.