Geno 2.0 results inaccurate

[Carl45]

Over 1 million tests? What percentage of the results are inaccurate? I think many people have taken their results as factual. But, I have experience with both Helix and FTDNA tests with the wrong results showing. National Geographic doesn't care about giving consumers the right haplogroup designation. This means everyone should look at their raw data and confirm which terminal SNP they are positive for. This is ridiculous. They tell people "we are not able to explain results or answer your questions but rest assured that they are 99.99% accurate." Do you know your correct haplogroup?? I doubt it. If they made a mistake, reply to this thread. I think there needs to be a class action lawsuit.

[Bog Body]

Over 1 million tests? What percentage of the results are inaccurate? I think many people have taken their results as factual. But, I have experience with both Helix and FTDNA tests with the wrong results showing. National Geographic doesn't care about giving consumers the right haplogroup designation. This means everyone should look at their raw data and confirm which terminal SNP they are positive for. This is ridiculous. They tell people "we are not able to explain results or answer your questions but rest assured that they are 99.99% accurate." Do you know your correct haplogroup?? I doubt it. If they made a mistake, reply to this thread. I think there needs to be a class action lawsuit.

Geno 2.0 said my yDNA haplogroup is I-Z63, 23andMe said I-Z58. Those are the only two tests I have done, so far. So I don't know which, if either, are correct.

[Carl45]

Geno 2.0 said my yDNA haplogroup is I-Z63, 23andMe said I-Z58. Those are the only two tests I have done, so far. So I don't know which, if either, are correct.

You need to look at a tree for the I haplogroup, and see where these two SNPs are. Z58 is downstream of Z63, so a little more precise. But, it sounds like your results are correct. My son's test shows R and I'm J. The reason for a minor discrepancy is that different companies test different SNPs and some are more precise, even though both are technically correct. However, in my case, it is basically saying my son cannot be my son. In this case, since National Geographic will not correct the "result," I can and have gone in the raw data to see if R is correct. It is not.

[GoldenHind]

You need to look at a tree for the I haplogroup, and see where these two SNPs are. Z58 is downstream of Z63, so a little more precise. But, it sounds like your results are correct. My son's test shows R and I'm J. The reason for a minor discrepancy is that different companies test different SNPs and some are more precise, even though both are technically correct. However, in my case, it is basically saying my son cannot be my son. In this case, since National Geographic will not correct the "result," I can and have gone in the raw data to see if R is correct. It is not.

As I have said many times on this forum, the Geno 2 test is notorious for frequent erroneous, incomplete and misleading results. I wouldn't trust their results. I would recommend testing with another company.

[vettor]

My natgeno gave me my ydna and mtdna , 2 years before any other company..
As of today, 23andne still cannot give me my ydna and mtdna markers accurately and only ftdna is accurate

But i did mine before natgeno 2.0 version.....circa 2012

[Bog Body]

You need to look at a tree for the I haplogroup, and see where these two SNPs are. Z58 is downstream of Z63, so a little more precise. But, it sounds like your results are correct....

Yikes. Thanks for pointing that out. Shows you how little I know about yDNA, right now.

Edit: Actually, with the few charts I just looked at, it looks like both branched off from I1a at the same level. Again, I am new at this so I could be mistaken.
Screen Shot 2019-07-23 at 8.04.05 PM.png

[Carl45]

I'm not familiar with I. But, either way it was a good confirmation for you that its generally a proper result.

[Carl45]

If my memory is correct, before geno 2.0, Y-DNA was a prediction. And, really we are comparing apples to oranges, because Geno 2.0 is a chip. The problem right now is not the test, but the algorithm. When I tested with Geno 2.0, a number of years ago my result was also wrong. And, I've heard of many others since that had incorrect results. Though, presumably, correct raw data.

[Carl45]

The problem is that the result is wrong, and this is what they tell me: We would love to help you but, unfortunately, we as customer service we are not able to explain results or answer your questions but rest assured that they are 99.99% accurate. We cannot redirect you to a team or department that can help you with your questions because there is no department or person in charge of that. What you are seeing on your online account is the only information we provide.

You can always download your DNA raw data and submit it to other 3rd parties so you are able to compare results or a more detailed explanation.


Thank you for supporting National Geographic.

Sincerely,
Danielle

[Carl45]

If you suspect that your result is incorrect, e-mail [email protected]. Dr. Vilar: "We care a lot, and if/when a mistake is made I personally make sure they are fixed. So, please let me know if any mistakes you know."

At a minimum, look at your terminal SNP, and look at the branch's defining SNP in the raw data to ensure you are in the right branch.