GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2011-10 > 1317858122
From: "Alister John Marsh" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] time=$
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 12:42:02 +1300
I am trying to trace my new SNP L617 to it's source. I am trying initially
to keep testing more and more distant STR haplotype matches to find where
Based on haplotype, there were initially two different possible slow marker
haplotype signatures which might be deep ancestral for my L617 group. I
tested one, and came up L617-, so initially I backed the wrong horse. I am
now testing the second, and results are keenly awaited. If I could get
faster testing by paying more, I might have paid twice as much to test the
first line. But as I backed the wrong horse, I now have to test the second
line. If initially I had hypothetically tested both lines together for the
same price as one faster test, results might have been slower, but by the
time results came I would know the results for both lines.
I don't object to you having your view, and choice is good. I was just
observing that in some situations there is a benefit in testing breadth more
slowly, than testing specific areas quickly.
As to my "arm chair political commentary", I did not offer an opinion on
whether socialists or capitalist are at different ends of the lollypop
spectrum, or which end might be capitalist or socialist. I leave that to
others to decide. It was not me who asked Dianna to tar and feather a
banker for you.
I guess like you, I am not taking this thread too seriously. Just putting
my personal view that width of coverage is in some situations is as valuable
as high speed narrow coverage.
From: Kenneth Nordtvedt
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 11:40 AM
Subject: Re: [DNA] time=$
From: Alister John Marsh
I don't fundamentally object to a person being able to get results quicker
if they pay more. I just wish I could afford to pay more myself.
But with genetic genealogy [[the hobby is more than near term genetic
genealogy }}, the value of the results is not having an
isolated result, but having as many people in the World tested who are
available to compare to. [[Not really; a SNP needs testing on primarily KEY
haplotypes to locate the SNP as unambiguously as possible in the Y tree
(including possible multiple locations). Soon further testing on the SNP
brings rapidly diminishing returns of information. STR haplotypes in the
genealogical context might be a different story. But it is not written in
the cosmos that SNP sales and STR sales need be treated in the same manner.
And not everyone is even using STR haplotype information in the same manner.
I, for instance, do not keep both haplotypes from first cousins in my
databases aiming to decipher the ancient Y tree. There is negligible value
added and even some negative consequences which have to be corrected for, if
such close haplotypes were kept. Cousin haplotypes might be boring
information even for some genealogists who already know for a fact the
cousins are first cousins.
The point is that the customer universe is quite heterogeneous in goals,
data requirements, and sensitivity to the waiting factor --- an approach to
sales and products by the company which accomodates the many very different
kinds of customers would be appreciated (and could actually result in
healthier hobby and company growth) --- and that's the closest I will come
to dealing with your full message's (not reproduced here) arm chair
political commentary. KN ]].
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