Should info be shortened under DNA Tested?

Question

If someone says they tested with Family Tree DNA and provided their kit number, then under DNA Tested it currently says something similar to "FTDNA kit #13628"  Should this be shortened to say "FTDNA 13628" ?  Or do you think too many people will be confused?

Comments

I might as well suggest a more radical hair cut:

For Y-DNA:

Peter Roberts: Family Tree DNA Y-DNA Test 67 markers, haplogroup I-Z59, Ysearch 97ZDB, FTDNA kit #8867 [test details]

could be

Peter Roberts: Family Tree DNA 8867, 67 markers, I-Z59, Ysearch 97ZDB, [test details]

because the detailed information is under test details.

For mtDNA;

Peter Roberts: Family Tree DNA mtDNA Test Full Sequence, haplogroup I3c, Mitosearch 97ZDB, FTDNA kit #8867 [test details]

could be

Peter Roberts: Family Tree DNA 8867, Full Sequence, I3c, Mitosearch 97ZDB, [test details]

For auDNA:

Betty (Roberts) Maxwell: 23andMe [test details] + Family Tree DNA Family Finder, GEDMatch T527089, FTDNA kit #13628 [test details]

could be:

Betty (Roberts) Maxwell: 23andMe [test details] + Family Tree DNA Family Finder 13628, GEDMatch T527089, [test details]

 

 

Answer 1

I use a Chromebook and cannot see any of the answers to this post/query...

My answer is really that kit #s or member #s should not be displayed to the publc - rather, WikiTree should either backend those specs or enter genuine paid partnerships with the major testing companies.

Comments

Hi Leake,

I don't follow you, can you explain more?

If it's a privacy issue regarding kit numbers, why can't the member just choose not to enter it?

Chris

---

Well I guess Peter's comments were not 'Answer's so maybe mine is the only Answer? Not a Chrome issue with that...

My point is that EU privacy issues have changed regarding DNA test results and their display - no solution has been finalized but directionally it goes where FTDNA and GEDmatch were going previously, that FTDNA kit #s should not be associated with the testee's name directly. Of course one could always leave blank a field but that reduces the adjacent functionality of the WikiTree data. Additional privacy options on these data might resolve the 'fan dance' dilemma better but could get tedious.

As a Surname project manager at FTDNA my project sees value in using WikiTree to host pedigree data tied to actual Y test results but the tools and privacy features are not quite there yet.

NGS testing has opened the floodgates on SNPs and their implied lineal relationships. Shared SNPs are moving into the genealogical timeframe so the value to WikiTree and to us as a project is more substantive with the 16th century and earlier. The challenges for documentation increase at the point that the value of DNA results for lineal descendants becomes more practical.

I'm suggesting features as simple as hiding actual kit numbers behind icons that automate an FTDNA site search for members, to constructing parallel SNP trees within WikiTree such as that suggested by Alex Williamson recently. Ken Sargent also appears to have some relevant suggestions as does Magnus Salvo.

When we share STR results among project members for instance we do not identify the project member's name - only the kit # and his most distant known ancestor. Members can decide whether or not to share additional info with other project members selectively, including contact info. And the toolset for project managers is robust in the sense that we are equipped to be 1st level support to members.

Regarding official partnerships - it would be great if you could figure out a revenue model for being the back-end family tree functionality for all of the independent testing firms, as well as the analytics services growing up around NGS. This would include FTDNA, FGC, YSeq, YFull, GEDmatch, etc. This would greatly reduce the amount of back and forth one much do between different websites presently, increase the value of the WikiTree data, and increase surname project effectiveness on the whole.

Just thoughts for your consideration... ;-)

---

Testers are allowed to let others know their kit numbers.

---

Peter - sure, and your point is .....? There is a microeconomic rationale at the individual level for entering/associating one's kit # with one's profile. That does that imply that the aggregation of these data and/or the macro view of that is consistent with 'allowing' one to populate his or her profile with data. And that should be the publishing platform provider's concern really, not the eagerness or recklessness of the individual user. Is there no problem in your view?

---

I see no problem because no health related issues are revealed about the tester or their relatives.

---

That may or may not be true - the real issue is compliance with the law, and secondly giving users the feature-set to control how the information may be used by anyone else. It's not a binary (good or bad) condition - there are many shades of grey and heavily nuanced with regard to how users use or control their DNA data. And this is important because DNA data are carved out by the law in many jurisdictions as being the same as health-related data. There is strict liability for breaking these laws, and they can be applied to institutions without regard to a user's initial intentions. This is why FTDNA has changed their privacy settings in this manner, and why chain of custody of these data are worth discussing - in particular regarding EU contributions to WikiTree. I invite you and Chris to explore the subject more fully. Frankly I'm more interested in additional tools and features based upon a secure data environment.

---

Yes, I'm also more interested in additional DNA tools and features.

The DNA samples are at the labs.  The raw autosomal DNA results are at the labs and GEDmatch (they are not at WikiTree).  There is no law against a DNA tester sharing their user ID.  I don't wish to explore the subject more fully.

FTDNA (Gene-by-Gene) won their first round http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/southcentral/2016/05/03/270557.htm

Thanks and sincerely,

---

Leake - This question has been debated for years on 23andme. The bottom line choice was between letting users decide for themselves who can see DNA Information that can be tied back to themselves or letting the company make the choice for them.

There were many more reasons for not sharing data on 23andme than the one stated here. Either each user can decide for themselves what criteria they use to decide or the company decides the criteria for them and proceeds based on the companies judgment.

Wikitree seems to have made its decision, for now.