GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-03 > 1268540484
From: "Terry Barton" <>
Subject: [DNA] Are the testing companies being guided to invest in the wrongthings for Genealogy?
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 23:21:24 -0500
Hi John. I could live with your two new panels concept - one fast and one
slow. It's a simpler solution for FTDNA to implement than what I proposed.
As many initiatives as FTDNA have going, more y-str needs to be something
they can do without using all of their focus.
I agree that rationalizing advanced markers into panels, offering them in
the standard section, and including them in TiP would increase advanced
I would hope to see some "fast" markers that aren't already tested at FTDNA
- as I've already tried the "DNA Fingerprint" ones and they weren't fast for
us. And - unless "Family Finder" solves our branching challenges - I am
still thinking that we will ultimately need "200" markers to reconstruct
families where paper trails don't exist.
Hi Vince. Thanks for the hint about Dashboard delivering the advanced
markers in the FTDNA Results report. I just ran the results generator and
got most of the results from our DNA Fingerprint testing. Excluding 385k, I
count as many as 33 markers currently being reported beyond the 67 markers.
And - the report isn't including a number of other markers we have tested at
FTDNA - so it should be even more.
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 13:53:53 +1300
From: "Alister John Marsh" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Are the testing companies being guided to invest in
thewrongthings for genealogy?.
In your blog you suggested various ways of putting the markers tested by
FTDNA beyond 67 into panels. I would be happy for those solutions, but my
suggestion would be two panels, approximately equal in size, one of fast
markers, one of slow.
If people on limited budgets could select the panel of either fast or slow
markers, they can focus on markers better suited to their particular time
frame of interest.
My estimate is that nearer to the present, the fast makers are very useful,
but nearer to 1,000 years ago, the slow markers are more reliable. I am
reluctant to put an exact date in the transition of usefulness between fast
and slow, as the science is not that exact.
These ideas have been suggested many times over past years. It would appear
that this suggested reorganization is a low priority for FTDNA, and I can to
some extent sympathize. I would probably be the first to appreciate any new
developments which FTDNA are working on instead of reorganizing markers into
different groups. ((Thinking/ dreaming out loud... Wouldn't it be great if
FTDNA were working on using new technologies to offer a ten million base
slice of Y-DNA served up in a single test with new technologies!))
I do however believe FTDNA would in the short term sell more tests if they
rationalized the advanced markers groups into ways better suited to the
customer's needs, so they in my view would get a pay back even if the
payback was not in a way which is easily measured.
I would guess that to an accountant, the current sales of advanced markers,
perhaps often sold singly rather than in batches, are a less profitable part
of the business. But if FTDNA marketed the advanced markers in customer
oriented batches, and included them in FTDNA-TiP calculations, they would
perhaps become near as profitable as the 38-67 batch.
I would guess that if they did nothing other than include all of their
advanced markers in FTDNA-TiP, they would have people ordering them just to
get a more statistically accurate TMRCA estimate.
I don't recall FTDNA stating on this list in recent times if they do have
any short term or long term plans to rationalize the way they market the
existing markers which they test.
|[DNA] Are the testing companies being guided to invest in the wrongthings for Genealogy? by "Terry Barton" <>|