GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-02 > 1267150005


From: "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Clerical mutations and lab errors
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 21:06:45 -0500
References: <REME20100225202615@alum.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <REME20100225202615@alum.mit.edu>


I have long advocated, for other reasons, that project admins open the default
web site provided by FTDNA, even if they also provide a personal web site for
the project. Those reasons are:

1. It provides continuity for the project if the admin drops out of the
picture, making it much easier for a new admin to take over, especially if the
personal web site goes offline. Yes, a co-admin is a good idea to accomplish
the same end, but not everyone wants a co-admin.

2. Test results are available to researchers immediately, rather than being
delayed by the admin having to upload them to their personal site.

3. It provides FTDNA's "current take" on the haplogroup as SNP tests are taken
and/or as the haplotree is revised, something I've found some admins are not
good at updating on their personal sites.

4. It's a cross-check for typos on the personal site.

And now you've given us another reason.

Please folks, it only takes a little effort to set up the default FTDNA web site
for your projects. If anyone needs help on the options, I'll be happy to help,
but I will request that you ask me on my Y-DNA-PROJECTS list (your joining the
list will be my reward for the time and effort):
http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/index/other/DNA/Y-DNA-PROJECTS.html

Diana

> -----Original Message-----
> From: On Behalf Of John Chandler
> Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 8:36 PM
> To:
> Subject: [DNA] Clerical mutations and lab errors
>
> I have a statistic that may interest some of you. In 2008, I visited
> a large number of Y DNA project web pages and collected a substantial
> number of 67-marker haplotypes -- about 10,000 in all -- in my effort
> to get an improved set of relative mutation rates. Alas, I found that
> number to be still too few. Recently, I began revisiting most of
> those same projects to expand my collection, and, because it is
> easiest to collect everything during a visit, I now have two snapshots
> separated by almost two years. About 9,000 haplotypes appear in both
> snapshots, and nearly all of them are the same both times -- but not
> quite all. 25 have changed in the meantime, and 10 of those 25 are in
> projects with www.ftdna.com/public pages that provide a direct window
> into the FTDNA results database. Indeed, about 8,000 of the
> haplotypes in play were found in such projects.
>
> Note: the duplicate haplotypes found for testees who belong to
> multiple projects have been weeded out. These are 8,000 distinct
> haplotypes.
>
> Thus, I have a reading on the discovery rate for lab errors, including
> clerical errors at the lab: 1 per 800 haplotypes. You can divide by
> 67 if you want the per-marker error rate, but I don't have enough
> events to say how the error probability is distributed among the
> various markers. It's surely not distributed evenly.
>
> Note the much higher error rate (including clerical errors by project
> webmasters) for the results found only on privately maintained web
> sites: 1 per 67 haplotypes.
>
> RECOMMENDATION: even though your project may have members who tested
> at other labs besides FTDNA, go ahead and set up a "public" web site
> at FTDNA as well.
>
> John Chandler
>
>
> -------------------------------
> 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: