GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives
Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-05 > 1211076252
From: Kirsten Saxe <>
Subject: [DNA] Genebase? - Re: Some truth in article was Re: Answerfrom AncestorsMagazine
Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 22:04:12 -0400
References: <110800.90473.qm@web81607.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <110800.90473.qm@web81607.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
I've only been in touch with two people with Genebase results, and both
sets of results seemed a little fishy to my inexperienced eye. I used
the SMGF Y chromosome search page to convert as many of the values from
Genebase as I could and input them into Whit Athey's haplogroup
predictor. I remember being uncertain of what format to use in Athey's
predictor, but I think I used the FTDNA format. The fitness scores that
came back were low. One I think was in the 20s for an I haplotype, and
the other was in the upper 40s for an R1b. The fellow with scores in the
upper 40s has since been tested at FTDNA, and their results did not
match the values I got when I did the conversion.
Maybe the conversion was wrong. If that was my mistake, that's one
thing, but if the SMGF conversion page doesn't work, then it makes me
wonder about Genebase.
I've thought about starting a thread on this to ask about Genebase, but
I haven't had the time, so I cringe a bit when they are mentioned. They
MAY be just what the genetic genealogy community DOESN'T need.
Kirsten
Robert Stafford wrote:
>I should add that Ancestry.com is also a good marketer. However, we will have to wait and see how well they do. It is hard to tell how well Genebase is doing. They put out some large numbers earlier.
>
> Bob Stafford
>
>Robert Stafford <> wrote:
> I agree with you. FTDNA is the best at marketing DNA testing. The companies run by scientists, such as RG and EA, are at a distinct disadvantage. I have an advanced degree in science and an MBA, so am very familiar with both mindsets.
>
>Bob Stafford
>
>David Faux wrote:
>As the former business/marketing manager of EthnoAncestry I can say with
>some authority that FTDNA is absolutely adopting the most correct approach
>with all variables consisered. Don't forget that with 12 markers FTDNA
>provides a guaranteed haplogroup assignment (a very good deal, except for
>those who are halogroup phobic), and in addition, it allows immediate entry
>into Dr. Hammer's extensive world-wide database for comparison purposes. I
>have no idea why you are both saying or implying that FTDNA is in some sort
>of shoddy way trying to dupe the consumer. That is absolutely not the
>case. I can report this a former competitor. They have consistently acted
>in a way that was in the best interests of the consumer but of course they
>cannot please everyone. One of you is a big supported of RG and will take
>any opportunity to take a pot shot at FTDNA. They are spot on in what they
>are doing. I know that. Most everyone else knows that. So why not end of
>story.
>
>David K. Faux.
>
>
>On 5/17/08, Robert Stafford wrote:
>
>
>>I agree. The irrationality of consumers is a well-known phenomenon.
>>
>>Bob Stafford
>>
>>"Peter A. Kincaid" <> wrote:
>>Why would you need to upgrade if there was
>>value in the 12 marker results? If there were
>>no 12 marker tests offered by FTDNA then
>>25 would be the entry level test and prices
>>would have to be adjusted accordingly. The
>>only real value of the 12 marker test for FTDNA
>>is for them to keep this as the base price/value
>>making one have to pay more for the tests of
>>real value. Anyone with business/marketing
>>experience will understand this point.
>>
>>Peter
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>-------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
>
>-------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
>
>-------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
>
>
>
This thread: