GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-02 > 1266845075


From: "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] DYS463 and DYS452
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 08:24:35 -0500
References: <BFECJOAEEPCFBFFLLBGPGEOBGPAA.dna@irishtype3dna.org><4B81D706.3060607@familytreedna.com><663D9BCEF1524D04936516981FC21BC6@HP><4B81F365.7090907@familytreedna.com><96935B881AD84A0D9B598E711FDF5650@HP><8239807.170330.1266835696891.JavaMail.www@wwinf2207><DC5F2413E28F4D33B951436D2892B872@HP>
In-Reply-To: <DC5F2413E28F4D33B951436D2892B872@HP>


Correction. DYS452 is not auto-uploaded from a member's page. I shouldn't post
when I've been up all night...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: On Behalf Of Diana Gale Matthiesen
> Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 8:06 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [DNA] DYS463 and DYS452
>
> Didier,
>
> I wasn't speaking in reference to any particular haplogroup,
> I was only speaking
> in regard to what should be an easy updating of DYS452 in the
> database. I
> didn't address the issue of updating DYS463.
>
> FTDNA, like virtually all labs testing for genealogical
> purposes, reports DYS452
> high. The Ysearch convention is for DYS452 to be high, and
> it is the high value
> that is entered when someone does an auto-upload to Ysearch
> from their member
> page. The problem in Ysearch is the values that are low,
> regardless of how they
> became low.
>
> Diana
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: On Behalf Of Didier VERNADE
> > Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 5:48 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: [DNA] DYS463 and DYS452
> >
> >
> > Diana,
> >
> > I don't know what would be FTDNA answer but your suggestion
> > seems to focus on R1b values. DYS463 is taking fairly
> > different values in other groups. For example: C3a --> 21
> > (low standard) ; E1b1a --> 18 (low) .
> >
> > From the discussion it's still unclear to me what's going on
> > when someone is uploading results from FTDNA : are the high
> > FTDNA values converted in low standard to fit ysearch
> > convention ? That could be the first point to clarify.
> >
> > Didier
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > The update I'm suggesting for DYS452 does not require the
> > > Ysearch database structure to change, at all. And I see no
> > > reason to delay this update while waiting for the whole
> > > database to be restructured to solve the micro-allele
> > > issue, which I fully grant is a bigger issue and does
> > > require re-structuring.
> > >
> > > Unless your IT department is using the lamest software on
> > > the planet, the update to DYS452 is as simple as I indicated,
> > > and it would save your users a lot of headaches in the
> > > interim you would do it.
> > >
> > > I'm taking the rest of my reply offlist.
> > >
> > > Diana
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Diana Gale Matthiesen wrote:
> > > > > Forgive me, Thomas, but this situation makes no sense to
> > > > > me. If the IT department is using anything remotely like
> > > > > typical SQL software, the entire database could be updated
> > > > > with a single SQL command, at least with regard to
> > > > > DYS452. Here is how simple the SQL command would be:
> > > > >
> > > > > UPDATE database SET DYS452 = DYS452 + 19 WHERE
> > > > > DYS452 < 24 and DYS452 > 0
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > To the defense of the IT group I must say that this is of
> > > > course more than just updating rows in a table. Note that the
> > > > structure needs to be completely re-organized when micro-
> > > > alleles are considered and that there are still some markers
> > > > that are not clearly defined in nomenclature with the current
> > > > NIST standards.
> > > >
> > > > This is of course no excuse to delay this change forever. I
> > > > try to push this as good as I can.
> > > >
> > > > Thomas
> > > >
>
>
> -------------------------------
> 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: