Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18

Thread: STR matching for R people

  1. #1
    Registered Users
    Posts
    36
    Sex
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Ethnicity
    Insular Celt
    Nationality
    American
    Y-DNA (P)
    R-M222>FGC4077>S679
    mtDNA (M)
    H4a1a4b

    Ireland

    STR matching for R people

    Quote Originally Posted by Mikewww View Post
    I'm encouraging people to upgrade to 111 Y STRs while they are on sale. Here is more background on the project; and the haplotype and gateway services provided.
    is there any chance that FTDNA will relax their maximum GD of 10, so that people who have long ago upgraded to 111 STRs can see some results?

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Eochaidh For This Useful Post:

     Rick (12-28-2015),  Smilelover (09-02-2016)

  3. #2
    Registered Users
    Posts
    65
    Sex
    Location
    Ohio
    Y-DNA (P)
    R-DF27>Z225

    United States Gadsden
    Quote Originally Posted by Eochaidh View Post
    is there any chance that FTDNA will relax their maximum GD of 10, so that people who have long ago upgraded to 111 STRs can see some results?
    This would be a great feature. My recently discovered little cluster/variety consisting so far of 3 men shares about 10 off modal markers at 111. I match one man at 101 markers and the other at 100. My 111 match results only show the former. FTDNA is already using drop down menus for match distances. It should not be too difficult to expand the range it would seem. Ysearch is of course more flexible, but seems to have fallen into relative disuse since the explosion of fine resolution SNP testing.

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Rick For This Useful Post:

     rms2 (12-28-2015),  Smilelover (09-02-2016)

  5. #3
    Registered Users
    Posts
    4,426
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick View Post
    This would be a great feature. My recently discovered little cluster/variety consisting so far of 3 men shares about 10 off modal markers at 111. I match one man at 101 markers and the other at 100. My 111 match results only show the former. FTDNA is already using drop down menus for match distances. It should not be too difficult to expand the range it would seem. Ysearch is of course more flexible, but seems to have fallen into relative disuse since the explosion of fine resolution SNP testing.
    I don't think it is a technical issue. I think there is some kind of privacy related policy in play. They might need to change a policy statement and/or ask another question in the profile that allows appearance on the new "extended" matching. It's a good idea, but my guess is the implementation would not go the way we'd like. They seem prone to err on the side of privacy.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to TigerMW For This Useful Post:

     Rick (12-28-2015)

  7. #4
    Banned
    Posts
    404
    Sex
    Nationality
    USA
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b>L21>Z253>L1066

    Ireland Germany England Netherlands Switzerland Scotland
    The GD limit is lower than it used to be. It was reduced around the time that there was a concern by FTDNA over data harvesting by Semargl.me. So I believe the restriction is intended to make it more difficult for other organizations to harvest FTDNA's data.

    Whether this is a sensible or effective response by FTDNA, or a decision in the best interest of the customer, is a question that I won't attempt to answer here.

  8. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to miiser For This Useful Post:

     Joe B (12-28-2015),  Rick (12-28-2015),  Smilelover (09-02-2016)

  9. #5
    Registered Users
    Posts
    4,426
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    Quote Originally Posted by miiser View Post
    The GD limit is lower than it used to be. It was reduced around the time that there was a concern by FTDNA over data harvesting by Semargl.me. So I believe the restriction is intended to make it more difficult for other organizations to harvest FTDNA's data.

    Whether this is a sensible or effective response by FTDNA, or a decision in the best interest of the customer, is a question that I won't attempt to answer here.
    Do you have any evidence for what you are saying? I haven't kept record of things like this but my memory is good enough to know my highest GD at 67 STRs ever displayed on my FTDNA matches screen was 7. That's probably from about 5 or 6 years ago. It's still 7 today. It's never been more than 7 (and I do have a good sized group in my cluster/project). If what you are saying is true, at least as far as 67 STRs, it should be 6 or less as the maximum match.

    I don't have time to research everyone's matches but my maximum at 67 of 7 amounts to a 10.45% diversity. My maximun at 37 is a GD=4 and I believe (not sure) that has been consistent over the years too. A GD of 4 at 37 amounts to a 10.81% diversity. [[[EDIT: added - I'm not sure how valuable the matches are at 37, but at 12 or 25 they probably should be messing around with the thresholds. A lot of people see a lot of junk matches at 12 and 25.]]]

    As far as I can tell the FTDNA threshold is 11%. Any GD of 11% or more is not displayed on the matching screen.

    I do remember FTDNA updating their TIP calculator when they came out with 111 Y STRs and they said at that time, I think, they were going to more of a infinite allele method. That should actually have opened things up a bit. I don't know.

    Either way, if you wish to denigrate FTDNA on a general topic please start a new thread somewhere else.
    Last edited by TigerMW; 12-28-2015 at 11:48 PM.

  10. #6
    Banned
    Posts
    404
    Sex
    Nationality
    USA
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b>L21>Z253>L1066

    Ireland Germany England Netherlands Switzerland Scotland
    Quote Originally Posted by Mikewww View Post
    Do you have any evidence for what you are saying? I haven't kept record of things like this but my memory is good enough to know my highest GD at 67 STRs ever displayed on my FTDNA matches screen was 7. That's probably from about 5 or 6 years ago. It's still 7 today. If what you are saying is true, at least as far as 67 STRs, it should be 6 or less as the maximum match.

    I don't have time to research everyone's matches but my maximum at 67 of 7 amounts to a 10.45% diversity. My maximun at 37 is a GD=4 and I believe (not sure) that has been consistent over the years too. A GD of 4 at 37 amounts to a 10.81% diversity.

    As far as I can tell the FTDNA threshold is 11%. Any GD of 11% or more is not displayed on the matching screen.

    I do remember FTDNA updating their TIP calculator when they came out with 111 Y STRs and they said at that time, I think, they were going to more of a infinite allele method. That should actually have opened things up a bit. I don't know.

    Either way, if you wish to denigrate FTDNA on a general topic please start a new thread somewhere else.
    I can't travel through time, and I don't have any screen shots from the old website, so no, I don't have any "evidence". I have a distinct memory from this time period of being annoyed that the GD distance had been reduced, and at this same time some other actions were taken by FTNDA to discourage data mining in unison with a public announcement addressing Semargl's behavior. I suppose it is possible that the GD limit was reduced only for some number of markers (for example, 12 marker matches were restricted but 111 marker matches were unchanged). I don't specifically remember the details of the before and after GD limits.

    At any rate, the current limit of ~10% is not even enough to encompass surname lineages, which frequently extend to 15% GD.

    You started the off topic speculation as to FTDNA's reason for limiting the GD, and my own comment was only a response to yours. And my own comment denigrates FTDNA no more than your own does, but simply describes a possible motivation for the GD limitation. If you wish to move both my and your own comment regarding such speculation to a seperate thread, this would be a rationally defensible moderator action, though certainly not a necessary or respectable one.

  11. #7
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,778
    Sex
    Location
    Dún Laoire, Bláth Cliath, Éire
    Ethnicity
    Gael
    Nationality
    Éireanach
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b-DF41
    mtDNA (M)
    U4d3

    Ireland
    If I recall if someone had tested to 111 markers you could look at the 67 STR matches with GD up to 11, you could even use this trick at lower levels (37,25 etc.) , reckon it was a "bug" (*cough* Feature *cough*) of their web interface which they subsequently "fixed"
    (R1b-DF41+)
    (MtDNA: U4d3)

    How to pronounce my username (modern Irish):
    Hidden Content

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Dubhthach For This Useful Post:

     lgmayka (12-29-2015),  miiser (12-29-2015)

  13. #8
    Senior Member
    Posts
    410
    Sex
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Ethnicity
    European
    Nationality
    Canadian
    Y-DNA (P)
    R-FGC396>L199.1
    mtDNA (M)
    U5a1a1h

    Canada Netherlands Poland Austrian Empire Russia Imperial
    Quote Originally Posted by Dubhthach View Post
    If I recall if someone had tested to 111 markers you could look at the 67 STR matches with GD up to 11, you could even use this trick at lower levels (37,25 etc.) , reckon it was a "bug" (*cough* Feature *cough*) of their web interface which they subsequently "fixed"
    Yup. That short-lived "bug" had allowed many, including myself, to find haplotype matches critical and advantageous to advancing their research.

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to VinceT For This Useful Post:

     lgmayka (12-29-2015),  miiser (12-29-2015)

  15. #9
    Registered Users
    Posts
    4,426
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    STR matching for R people

    This has come up on other threads off-topic so I'll move it here.

  16. #10
    Registered Users
    Posts
    4,426
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    Quote Originally Posted by miiser View Post
    ...
    You started the off topic speculation as to FTDNA's reason for limiting the GD, and my own comment was only a response to yours...
    The off-topic tangent was not started by me. It was an innocent question in the flow of normal conversation. See reply #1. I attempted to answer it. That's what I get for allowing anyway leeway.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 03-12-2021, 09:48 PM
  2. Replies: 88
    Last Post: 08-21-2019, 01:31 PM
  3. Question about autosomal matches (matching jewish people?)
    By TigerFang in forum Autosomal (auDNA)
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-10-2018, 02:28 PM
  4. Maya people vs Nahua people
    By Omar_Medina92 in forum General
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-10-2017, 05:16 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •