Serendipity?

This may answer the question I just posed above.    But since I don't think I understand what Lawrence is saying, I'm not sure if it does or not.    I'll leave that to you.

Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 12:06:03 -0600
From: "Lawrence Mayka"
Subject: [DNA] FTDNA clearing away nonspecific I predictions
To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com

From November 8 to November 9, 16 members of my project saw their public haplogroup prediction (as listed on our project web site) go from I or '-' to I1a, I1b, or I1c.    My first thought is that this is a recognition of the fact that many old test results of I were due simply to lack of further testing (for I1a, I1b, or I1c), and that such older I results should not in themselves drag down a current customer's haplogroup prediction.    I know also that in some cases, FTDNA has recently run some additional free SNP tests on older kits (e.g., to refine an I to I1c).

As you may know, FTDNA has one algorithm for posting a customer's haplogroup prediction on his own Haplogroup tab, and a stricter algorithm for posting a haplogroup prediction on a public web site such as those generated for FTDNA-sponsored projects.    This newsletter from 2004 describes the two algorithms, although they may have been refined somewhat since then:

http://www.familytreedna.com/facts_genes.asp?act=show

Note that this algorithm refinement should not affect the SNP Assurance Program, because that program defines haplogroup uncertainty in terms of the Genographic Project's algorithm.    Of course, that project may decide to refine its algorithm too.

REALLY POSTED BY LANGOLIER AT 9:21 PM  ♣