GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-09 > 1128029350


From: "Peter A. Kincaid" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Re: Another set of extended DYS464, DYF385S1, DYF399S1 results
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 18:29:10 -0300
References: <1f2.1328fbb5.306d3239@aol.com>


I would disagree in that 1 marker off does make a difference in
trying to figure out one's line. We have enough results back now
that in the main group one can see a central point and branches from
it. Having one marker off can really through things off as it could
make a person come off one branch (that it did not) versus another
that it truly did. The whole point of using DNA technology is as
a tool to help determine what branch a line comes off. Genealogists
understand this and this is what we are paying for. The lab technicians
may not have an interest in the genealogical aspects and to them an
occasional error is okay especially those whose interest and background
may have been with deeper roots and population studies.

One marker wrong is not acceptable. In our project there have been
two cases (this is all I can recall) of one marker being reported
wrong. These errors caused people to expend effort and perhaps
research dollars trying to find connections that were not there since
it was an error. It is only because the result did not seem to fit that
the error was found. On the other hand there could be errors that place
a person in a group of other participants (ie. the all match). One would
not suspect the error and the person will continue to waste their time
until the error is found.

More than one error does occur. We had the unusual case where the
results were inputed in the database in reverse. As a result all the
markers were wrong. The participant did not catch the error. I
caught is as it was so out of wack in terms of modal values. Thus,
expect the unexpected.

The bottom line is that we can't live in a perfect world so errors have
to be watched out for even though it is not acceptable. The difference
for me is that the company we deal with (FTDNA) was great in that
each time an error was suspected they rechecked the results without
questions and without charge. While some confidence in them was
initially lost their attitude in terms of customer service was that it
kept us loyal to them and the confidence is regained. I recently thought
I had them on another error but it held. That they kept the same
attitude about things is what made the difference,

Best wishes!

Peter


----- Original Message -----
From: <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 9:04 AM
Subject: Re: [DNA] Re: Another set of extended DYS464, DYF385S1, DYF399S1
results


>
> Ed, Peter,
>
> True, the goal should be no errors. However, the errors that have been
> reported are only on one marker out of 25, 37, 43, or whatever. A 13
> instead of a
> 14, etc.. This is not enough to throw away a whole family history or
> ancestral
> place.
>
> The fact that someone "might" have an error is still big news. So out of
> tens of thousands of samples, it doesn't happen that often.
>
> Bill D
>
>
> -----------------
> In a message dated 9/29/2005 7:44:10 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> writes:
>
> Peter,
>
> Thanks for this comment. I feel the exact same way. I doubt that any of
> the members of this list would want to receive a bogus result which puts
> them
> in a bogus early ancestral place. Some of us really are depending very
> heavily
> on accurate results. When a result "looks weird" seems to me maybe it
> should
> be retested at least once. If you are the lone fish in the pond being
> tested
> for your ancestry and there aren't any other same surname male fishes in
> your
> family around to be tested then it is like you say above "People may
> accept
> certain statistics in terms of error rates. However, try telling this to
> someone
> who gets results that indicate they are not part of the family that they
> thought they were."
>
> The folks who are in the 1% error group may not be real happy to realize
> that they have been given bogus results.
>
> Ed
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ==============================
> Census images 1901, 1891, 1881 and 1871, plus so much more.
> Ancestry.com's United Kingdom & Ireland Collection. Learn more:
> http://www.ancestry.com/s13968/rd.ashx
>
>


This thread: