|
Mike:? Thanks for posting that information.? Yes, I think I have a chance of BigY matching with IN48416, but only genealogically before the 1700s and likely a few hundred years before that even. Of course I'm playing the fun game called guessing, because it really is fun to do so.? He has a possible 10 good SNPs on his Big Tree private page, most of them named by ftdna.? ?I see on the Big Tree that FTDNA is/has been naming private SNPs that don't seem very good --? good being a blank white box with only a + sign in the middle. Is that because they believe they are good SNPs, or some other reason?? I should match at least one SNP with my Aussie Martin cousin, #44265, who only has two 'good' private snps, FGC40169 and FGC40170.? See my comments (coloured) below in your post.? Yes, BigY is the first best choice, but some people are still leary of any DNA testing. Fears and doubts are big obstacles, and a major cause of SNP* paragroups without a near present day terminal SNP -- in my opinion.? Many people want to be 'sold' on a concept first, before dishing out the money.? I think it's slowly happening, but just not as fast as we'd like. ;-) Daryl? ? On Sat, Aug 27, 2022, 8:43 PM Tiger Mike <mwwdna@...> wrote:
Are pileups a true negative outcome? At least in a pileup we can see which Son SNP they belong to, in the case of L193 men. I suspect that some people just need to dip their toe in the water to get a sense of what it feels like. This may induce an interest to walk in further.?
I've found that many people just need someone to help them further into the water.?
Yes, negative results may not show any relatedness but the whole process may stir up an interest to know more and may even convert doubters into believers of more expensive tests like BigY.?
|
