GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-03 > 1268485286


From: SVass <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Are the testing companies being guided to invest in thewrong things for genealogy?
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 05:01:26 -0800
References: <mailman.407.1268467245.20261.genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.407.1268467245.20261.genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com>


One extra piece of data should also be listed:
Negative SNP results should be included for testees in the standardized notation.

Sam Vass

On Mar 13, 2010, Lancaster-Boon wrote:
>
> I think many posts have touched on this question. I want to raise it in a clear way. It is being forgotten and put aside too much.
>
> First let me say that I have done 23andMe testing and FGS testing, and I continue to be interested in such advances personally. I also appreciate
> that some people do manage to use autosomal and mitochondrial testing in ways which help genealogy.
> ......
>
> HOWEVER, to come to the point, the fact remains that when genealogists ask me whether such testing can help them I generally say no, and that it is
> almost always better to spend your money on Y DNA testing: more STR markers, and even (increasingly) SNP testing.
> ,,,,
> For genealogy we need:-
>
> 1. Short term. More STR markers, and those STR markers to more easily usable in the lrgest possible databases.
>
> 2. Long term. The standardization of the use of SNP discovery as a part of genealogy.
> ....
> *Admins can not even get a simple tabular listing of advanced STR results, nor any SNP results, for any project from FT DNA, (after how many years?).
> ....
> ...we must not forget genealogy and we must not forget how many obvious improvements could be made to the services available for Y DNA.
>
> Comments?
>



This thread: