Keyboard Shortcuts
Likes
- R1b-U106
- Messages
Search
Re: Match on block tree but not listed as Big Y Match
FTDNA's Big Y match threshold is 30 YSNPs between two testers. The Big Y tester is still a valuable match though even if they are outside the threshold. I have some in my block tree page that are not in my Big Y matches list.? °ä¾±²¹°ù¨¢²Ô
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 05:42:49 PM UTC, mlh via groups.io <mhendersona2@...> wrote:
Hi! I have a question, please.? Why is there one match in the same block on the Big Y Block Tree, but that match is not listed under Big Y Matches - Big Y Matches says "Currently no matches"?? Both kits were processed years ago, so that's not the issue.? Both kits did the Big Y-700 test and under the Y-match list it says the Big Y STR Differences are 5 of 605 but the match does not show up under the Big Y Matches. Thank you! Mary |
Match on block tree but not listed as Big Y Match
Hi! I have a question, please.? Why is there one match in the same block on the Big Y Block Tree, but that match is not listed under Big Y Matches - Big Y Matches says "Currently no matches"?? Both kits were processed years ago, so that's not the issue.? Both kits did the Big Y-700 test and under the Y-match list it says the Big Y STR Differences are 5 of 605 but the match does not show up under the Big Y Matches. Thank you! Mary |
Re: Ancient connections
¿ªÔÆÌåÓýHi Kevin, Effectively this is saying what portion of the FTDNA database is in the haplogroup you share with this ancient individual. In this case, that haplogroup is R-FGC13326, so one in every 605 customers (for a total of 424 out of about a quarter-million customers) is FGC13326+. This is effectively a way of showing how significant this result is to your ancestry but, really, there are probably more important factors to look at. Altheim 1 is from very early medieval Bavaria, so any connection you have to this individual has to pass the 2000 years between the early medieval period and the ancestor of R-FGC13326 to have any relevance to your ancestral line. We can't easily piece together that 2000 years, so Altheim 1 only has very little relevance to the history of R-FGC13326 as we can trace it today. Cheers, Iain. |
Re: Ancient connections
Hello Kevin 1 in 605 is a 0.165% chance. ie if we start with the 256,557 Modern results, and divide that by the 424 closely related men, we get a 1 in 605 chance To check 605 x 424 = 256,520 and - 256,557 = 37 rounding error. Kind regards John
On Sunday, 26 November 2023 at 08:38:26 pm ACDT, Kevin Terry <kevintyrry@...> wrote:
Can someone explain to me what "1 in 605" means? Rare Connection 1 in?605 Only?424?customers are this closely related to?Altheim 1. |
Re: Big Y Lifetime Analysis: The Myth of the Manual Review
Thank you Debbie. |
Big Y Lifetime Analysis: The Myth of the Manual Review
¿ªÔÆÌåÓýA useful and informative new blog post from FamilyTreeDNA explaining how they analyse BigY results: ? ? Debbie Kennett |
Re: FTDNA Administrators Conference 2023
I¡¯ve just logged into my FTDNA account and I can access my Family Finder matches without any problem. The message is still displayed that we can¡¯t download the match list and the segment data. ? Geni.com does at least have the advantage over MyHeritage in that there is no limit to the number of people you can have in your tree with a free account. ? You can also transfer your FTDNA DNA results to Geni.com though, given that they only seem to accept transfers from FTDNA, there seems to be nothing to be gained from doing this: ?
? Debbie ? From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Linda Wheaton via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2023 5:52 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [R1b-U106] FTDNA Administrators Conference 2023 ? I am not even able to pull up matches currently. My father and mother each have over 4000 family finder matches. I work on a family at a time (currently trying to sort out the Jennens/Jennings family who had several children marry into the Maupin family) and I can not even pull up matches. ? I will probably go to Geni.com who does attach both Y and MT to the direct lines making it easier to follow the line for potential matches. You can also lock a person's profile to prevent unapproved matches. |
Re: FTDNA Administrators Conference 2023
My view is the FTDNA tree has a serious deficiency in the sophistication department. In my experience, using the MyHeritage tree is slightly better with more bells and whistles, but my main beef is I don¡¯t like the 250 threshold for free members. I would say Ancestry stepped up their game with their tree functions and enjoy using it. Every few months I will cancel my subscription with Ancestry and wait until they start emailing me with hints, etc., then re-subscribe. Seems to work for me doing it that way. I haven¡¯t considered Geni and may experiment with it over the coming weeks. I tend to use Ancestry and Familysearch to work on individual lineages and post those to my main tree at Familysearch and WikiTree. I¡¯m intrigued by Geni though.? -Joe On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 12:51 Linda Wheaton via <lbucher=[email protected]> wrote:
|
Re: FTDNA Administrators Conference 2023
I am not even able to pull up matches currently. My father and mother each have over 4000 family finder matches. I work on a family at a time (currently trying to sort out the Jennens/Jennings family who had several children marry into the Maupin family) and I can not even pull up matches. I will probably go to Geni.com who does attach both Y and MT to the direct lines making it easier to follow the line for potential matches. You can also lock a person's profile to prevent unapproved matches. |
Re: FTDNA Administrators Conference 2023
¿ªÔÆÌåÓýLinda ? FTDNA announced at their conference that they will in future be using MyHeritage trees though they didn¡¯t provide details or give a timeline. However, I presume that as part of that process they have stopped developing their own family trees and fixing any bugs which may explain the difficulties you¡¯ve been experiencing. They did promise to keep existing trees as read-only versions for those users who are unable to use the MyHeritage facilities. ? Concetta also mentioned concerns about the process of linking FTDNA matches to trees at MyHeritage. I am unclear how this will work. I can foresee difficulties if someone has a subscription and links lots of matches to their tree but then reverts to the free 250-person tree after their subscription expires. I hope the situation will be clarified in due course. ? I¡¯ve personally never found much in the way of useful matches at FTDNA so I¡¯ve never used the tree-linking feature other than for linking my parents to get my matches sorted into the two parental sides. I focus instead on linking matches to my tree at Ancestry. ?I use the tree tags to label matches at FTDNA, MyHeritage and 23andMe. ? ? I can¡¯t see FTDNA implementing their own version of ThruLines in the foreseeable future. They seem to be rightly focused on developing their Y-DNA and mtDNA products instead. ? Debbie ? From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Linda R Horton
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 11:04 PM To: [email protected]; cfbandit <cfbandit@...> Subject: Re: [R1b-U106] FTDNA Administrators Conference 2023 ? What in the world happened to FTDNA trees? I can remember at one time being able to complete linking on a new test taker's tree to all the folks who had tested before. But at present I have a new test taker--a second cousin whose YDNA test is the one of most interest--and I have encountered nothing but frustration trying to link on his tree (uploaded by me from Ancestry) the many cousins of his whose tests I have sponsored. The search-for-name function seems not to work at all, and even when you manage to get the match list and the proper tree-branch-leaf on the screen at the same time, that drag rectangle from lefthand list to box on tree takes forever to load, if it works at all. ? I am wary of MyHeritage trees. I would rather that FTDNA fix its own trees. Linda Horton
? |
Re: FTDNA Administrators Conference 2023
¿ªÔÆÌåÓý
What in the world happened to FTDNA trees? I can remember at one time being able to complete linking on a new test taker's tree to all the folks who had tested before.
But at present I have a new test taker--a second cousin whose YDNA test is the one of most interest--and I have encountered nothing but frustration trying to link on his tree (uploaded by me from Ancestry) the many cousins of his whose tests I have sponsored. The search-for-name function seems not to work at all, and even when you manage to get the match list and the proper tree-branch-leaf on the screen at the same time, that drag rectangle from lefthand list to box on tree takes forever to load, if it works at all.
?
I am wary of MyHeritage trees. I would rather that FTDNA fix its own trees.
Linda Horton
|
Re: FTDNA Administrators Conference 2023
Debbie, I am thinking similar to you about MyHeritage trees. I know mine is just a basic pedigree since I have the free version of MyHeritage. Its a real loss to lose the data in our FTDNA trees, as I have many of my DNA cousins mapped out and tagged there - and that won't be possible with the MyHeritage tree since there's not large enough?of a person limit (in its current iteration, not knowing what FTDNA will arrange).? The other question would be how much integration they will have with the MyHeritage trees. As we all probably know, MH trees can be as bad, if not worse than the Ancestry trees, and another "thrulines" type product, which while it would put FTDNA and MyHeritage on par with Ancestry, would prove very annoying.? Concetta? On Wed, Nov 8, 2023 at 2:58?PM Debbie <debbiekennett@...> wrote:
|
Big Y-700 Now just $119 a SAVING of $90 on top of the usual half price Big Y-700
Hello All FTDNA are now offering an extraordinary discount on Big Y-700 tests for those with Big Y-500 results. Now just $119 a SAVING of $90 on top of the usual half price Big Y-700 Remember it is not an upgrade; but a totally new test, which on average discovers 50% more SNPs than the original Big Y test. This is a major reason we are seeing so many new branches; and branch splits. BLACK FRIDAY SALE NOVEMBER 20th to NOVEMBER 30th Kind regards ? |
Re: Understanding Big Y Matches outside my Haplogroup
¿ªÔÆÌåÓýHi Mark, A quick and hasty reply... The lack of matches is due to the distance of your closest relationship with other testers. Apart from your cousin, your closest relationship is at R-Y8604, 24 SNPs plus your private SNP before your relationship with your cousin, i.e., about 1800 years old, while R-S5245 is about 1900 years old and separated by only one extra SNP. The matching criteria for Y-STRs are set at around 1000 years ago, so we would expect that you would probably not match anyone else on Y-STRs. BigY on the other hand matches nominally matches to people up to about 1500 years ago: the limits are set so that matches must have a maximum of 30 SNPs that separate them in their non-matching variants. Normally, this is the same as separate them on the haplotree, but it depends on whether every SNP in the non-matching variants list is sufficiently reliably to be placed on the haplotree, and it dependson whether every SNP is called in both tests. With there being 26 SNPs that separate you from your R-Y8604 common ancestor, we would expect everyone else in R-Y8604 and any upstream haplogroup (like R-S5245) to be more than 30 SNPs distant from you, which is why you don't match anyone else at R-Y8604. However, the exception to this would be people not tested for all those 26 SNPs. This includes people who have taken the earlier BigY-500 test, which only covers about 2/3 of the modern BigY-700. These BigY-500 tests of your matches likely tested only some of the 24 SNPs that form R-FT201177, perhaps one or two of your private variants, and may only have a few SNPs and private variants of their own that separate them from the R-S5245 ancestor. I've had a look at these three matches: one isn't in the project, one is in the project but who has provided us with minimum access, and one definitely has only taken a BigY-500 test. So you are probably exactly right when you say these matches to you only took the original BigY and thus have fewer non-matching variants: if they upgraded to the modern BigY-700, then they wouldn't be matches to you any more. Best wishes, Iain. |
Re: Understanding Big Y Matches outside my Haplogroup
If your 3 ¡°matches¡± are STR matches it is because STR matches are fickle due to parallel, back, and rapid mutations.? STR matches always include some degree of uncertainty. On Sun, Nov 19, 2023 at 10:06?AM Mark Winz via <markwinz68=[email protected]> wrote: When I took the Y-37 test in 2016 I had no matches at 37 STR or above. Upgraded to 111 markers, no joy. In 2019 a remote cousin appeared at 111 (6 steps) so we took the Big Y 700 test. We match on that test with 6 non-matching variants. The test established our Haplogroup R-FT201177, a little German enclave, in mostly British R-Y8604 under R-S5245.? My guess is that there are at least a 10 Big Y tests in R-Y8604 but I don't match any of them.? |
Understanding Big Y Matches outside my Haplogroup
When I took the Y-37 test in 2016 I had no matches at 37 STR or above. Upgraded to 111 markers, no joy. In 2019 a remote cousin appeared at 111 (6 steps) so we took the Big Y 700 test. We match on that test with 6 non-matching variants. The test established our Haplogroup R-FT201177, a little German enclave, in mostly British R-Y8604 under R-S5245. ?My guess is that there are at least a 10 Big Y tests in R-Y8604 but I don't match any of them.?
However, I do match 3 guys in other subclades under R-S5245. Why them? Did they take the original Big Y and so have fewer non matching variants to count for the map algorithm?? R-U106 > R-Z2265 > R-BY30097 > R-FTT8 > ?R-Z381 > R-Z301 > R-L48 > R-Z9 > R-Z30 > R-Z27 > R-Z345 > R-Z2 > RZ7 > R-Z31 > R-Z8 > R-Z1 > R-Z346 > R-DF101 > R-S1726 > R-DF102 > R-FGC12975 > R-S5245 > R-Y8604 > R-FT201177 Mark |
Re: Testing statistics and country-level bias update
Hi Iain, folks, ? Thank you for this inventory and your observations, which are as interesting as they are relevant. ? I would like to associate some maps, which, at least I hope, can somewhat graphically illustrate your remarks, as well as some of the biases encountered in the FTDNA¡¯s databases. ? Below, two sets of ??European?? maps relating to R-U106. ? 1- The first series includes data from the FTDNA¡¯s Discover tool, by countries (updated on 11.18.2023). 2- The 2nd series concerns data from the FTDNA¡¯s SNP Map tool, by regions (updated on 11.14.2023 / Y-DNA Haplotree from 11.10.2023). These data correspond to the geo-location coordinates of EKA. Only testers who have provided the location of their EKA in Europe, or one of the neighboring countries (regions) displayed on the map, are considered. ? For each country / region, 2 numbers are associated?: the first concerns the number of FTDNA¡¯s R-U106+ testers. The 2nd concerns the number of associated FTDNA¡¯s testers, all haplogroups combined (e.g. South West England?: 322 R-U106+ testers out of a total of 1489). Finally, a percentage is computed. ? For each of these 2 series of maps, you will find?: 1- A frequency map of R-U106 (and all of its subclades) by country / region (for countries not subdivided into regions, such as the Republic of Ireland, this time I only use data from SNP Map). 2- A map that I call ??distribution??. It displays the percentage represented by the number of R-U106+ testers associated with a country/region, out of all the testers represented on the map. I don't apply any correction to it (e.g. South West England?: 322 / 4339 > 7.4%). 3- A called map of corrected distribution. To the previous map, I apply a correction factor taking into account the sampling rate of the population of each country/region. The populations considered here are modern populations. The best would actually be to use historical populations, for example from the beginning of the 19th century, or the second half of the 18th century. The lower the sampling rate of the population of a region/country, the greater the margin of error on the extrapolated result. This gives rise to some aberrations such as La Rioja in Spain, the Faroe Islands, certain regions of the Russian Volga, etc. We can also notice that the sampling rate for different regions of the same country is not fixed¡ ? Discover?(Countries): ? SNP Map?(Regions): ? It could potentially be interesting to follow the evolution of these data/maps over time. Consequently, if this provided interesting and complementary insight, I could update them around November 2024 for comparison. ? Cheers, ? Ewenn |