World Families Forums - A Change in Format at the R-L21 Plus Project

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 20, 2014, 06:50:59 AM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  R1b General (Moderator: rms2)
| | |-+  A Change in Format at the R-L21 Plus Project
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: A Change in Format at the R-L21 Plus Project  (Read 996 times)
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« on: August 06, 2012, 04:02:28 PM »

After consulting with Mike (Bernard's on holiday and evidently cannot be reached), I changed the layout of the project's Y-DNA Results pages. Gone are the old geographic categories: everything is now organized by terminal SNP.

The old geographic categories served a useful purpose when the project was new, but their utility is limited now, as R-L21 becomes ever more fragmented by its subclades.

If you are a project member and I screwed up and placed you in the wrong category, let me know via email. Please include your kit number, the category you are currently in, the category you should be in, and why.

I'm hoping this new layout will encourage more SNP testing, at least as far as DF13, anyway.

Logged

k.o.gran
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 104


« Reply #1 on: August 06, 2012, 04:54:31 PM »

Looks good! :)

-Kai
Logged

R-DF63+
Jdean
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 678


« Reply #2 on: August 06, 2012, 07:23:00 PM »

Yep a really good move.

incy wincy suggestion, but I think it may be a little to much work !!

What do you think about groups for well defined clusters such as the Scots Modal etc. ?
Logged

Y-DNA R-DF49*
MtDNA J1c2e
Kit No. 117897
Ysearch 3BMC9

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #3 on: August 06, 2012, 09:34:02 PM »

Yep a really good move.

Yes, great work. Richard. We really appreciate the work you put on the project.

I doubt if many recognize the amount of work/time it takes to keep a relevant set of categories (member subgroupings) going in a large project like R-L21 Plus.

Taking this step was even more tedious as the categorization is by terminal SNP and since FTDNA's hapogroup labeling is behind this requires extra steps for every member/move to a subgrouping.

This is not just another way to look at the data. This kind of view will be helpful to members in their efforts to understand what SNPs they might test for.

Thanks, again.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #4 on: August 06, 2012, 10:03:27 PM »

Thanks, gentlemen.

I anticipate having to make adjustments, and I've already made some, thanks to emails from members.

I may tweak things a bit here and there, but this was a lot of work, and I don't want to make things too complex and thereby render them impossible to maintain.

@Jdean

I am deathly afraid of creating cluster categories because I think everyone will want his cluster or pseudo-cluster recognized.

I like the terminal SNP route.
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #5 on: August 06, 2012, 10:13:45 PM »

By the way, I guess I should give credit where credit is due.

I happened to check out the R1b-U106 Research Group. It used to be totally bound up in geographical categories (and nothing else), but now it has a new, SNP-driven look.

I thought it was pretty cool. We already had some subclade categories, but the new look of the R1b-U106 Research Group inspired me to go whole hog.

I wonder. Is the R1b-U106 Research Group called that because it is like the Spencer Davis Group?

Does that make us like the Alan Parsons Project?
Logged

gtc
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 238


« Reply #6 on: August 06, 2012, 11:08:40 PM »

By the way, I guess I should give credit where credit is due.

I happened to check out the R1b-U106 Research Group. It used to be totally bound up in geographical categories (and nothing else), but now it has a new, SNP-driven look.

Yes, that's thanks to an enormous amount of recent work by Charles Moore.
Logged

Y-DNA: R1b-Z12* (R1b1a2a1a1a3b2b1a1a1) GGG-GF Ireland (roots reportedly Anglo-Norman)
mtDNA: I3b (FMS) Maternal lines Irish
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #7 on: August 06, 2012, 11:11:09 PM »

By the way, I guess I should give credit where credit is due.

I happened to check out the R1b-U106 Research Group. It used to be totally bound up in geographical categories (and nothing else), but now it has a new, SNP-driven look.

Yes, that's thanks to an enormous amount of recent work by Charles Moore.


Great work.

So, is he Spencer Davis or Stevie Winwood? ;-)
Logged

gtc
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 238


« Reply #8 on: August 07, 2012, 03:30:46 AM »

By the way, I guess I should give credit where credit is due.

I happened to check out the R1b-U106 Research Group. It used to be totally bound up in geographical categories (and nothing else), but now it has a new, SNP-driven look.

Yes, that's thanks to an enormous amount of recent work by Charles Moore.


Great work.

So, is he Spencer Davis or Stevie Winwood? ;-)

Given the way he shuffles life, work and all of this stuff I'm think more BTO:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7OaHsaKY24
Logged

Y-DNA: R1b-Z12* (R1b1a2a1a1a3b2b1a1a1) GGG-GF Ireland (roots reportedly Anglo-Norman)
mtDNA: I3b (FMS) Maternal lines Irish
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #9 on: August 07, 2012, 11:17:52 AM »

By the way, I guess I should give credit where credit is due.

I happened to check out the R1b-U106 Research Group. It used to be totally bound up in geographical categories (and nothing else), but now it has a new, SNP-driven look.

Yes, that's thanks to an enormous amount of recent work by Charles Moore.


Great work.

So, is he Spencer Davis or Stevie Winwood? ;-)

Given the way he shuffles life, work and all of this stuff I'm think more BTO:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7OaHsaKY24

Great song! One of my all time favorites.

Ah, the good ol' days!
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #10 on: August 07, 2012, 11:38:23 AM »

Actually, balancing my projects and the rest of life makes me feel like this.

(Also one of my favorites.)
Logged

Jdean
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 678


« Reply #11 on: August 07, 2012, 02:24:27 PM »


@Jdean

I am deathly afraid of creating cluster categories because I think everyone will want his cluster or pseudo-cluster recognized.

I like the terminal SNP route.

I can understand that, it's why I suggested well defined clusters but even then you have the fuzzy edges and then other less well defined groups would want inclusion, where do you stop ?
Logged

Y-DNA R-DF49*
MtDNA J1c2e
Kit No. 117897
Ysearch 3BMC9

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #12 on: August 07, 2012, 04:00:10 PM »

@Jdean

I am deathly afraid of creating cluster categories because I think everyone will want his cluster or pseudo-cluster recognized.

I like the terminal SNP route.

I can understand that, it's why I suggested well defined clusters but even then you have the fuzzy edges and then other less well defined groups would want inclusion, where do you stop ?

I agree with RMS on this. There are plenty of SNPs to keep him busy classifying people in the project. The problem with STR based clusters is the gray areas and even seemingly well defined clusters have them around the edges. I've even seen what I thought was a well defined cluster broken into two. They were just converging groups.

If you want clusters and accept the fuzziness, I've got plenty of that in the spreadsheet I maintain that uses STR signatures I call speculative varieties.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #13 on: August 07, 2012, 06:38:07 PM »

@Jdean

I am deathly afraid of creating cluster categories because I think everyone will want his cluster or pseudo-cluster recognized.

I like the terminal SNP route.

I can understand that, it's why I suggested well defined clusters but even then you have the fuzzy edges and then other less well defined groups would want inclusion, where do you stop ?

I agree with RMS on this. There are plenty of SNPs to keep him busy classifying people in the project. The problem with STR based clusters is the gray areas and even seemingly well defined clusters have them around the edges. I've even seen what I thought was a well defined cluster broken into two. They were just converging groups.

If you want clusters and accept the fuzziness, I've got plenty of that in the spreadsheet I maintain that uses STR signatures I call speculative varieties.


Thanks, Mike.

And I have already had little tastes here and there of the disputes that can arise about whether or not this or that outlier is really in the cluster and therefore should be counted as positive for this or that SNP.

It's too much to deal with.
Logged

Jdean
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 678


« Reply #14 on: August 07, 2012, 06:55:03 PM »

@Jdean

I am deathly afraid of creating cluster categories because I think everyone will want his cluster or pseudo-cluster recognized.

I like the terminal SNP route.

I can understand that, it's why I suggested well defined clusters but even then you have the fuzzy edges and then other less well defined groups would want inclusion, where do you stop ?

I agree with RMS on this. There are plenty of SNPs to keep him busy classifying people in the project. The problem with STR based clusters is the gray areas and even seemingly well defined clusters have them around the edges. I've even seen what I thought was a well defined cluster broken into two. They were just converging groups.

If you want clusters and accept the fuzziness, I've got plenty of that in the spreadsheet I maintain that uses STR signatures I call speculative varieties.


That's what I said in it ? ;)

I'd be interested in the clusters that got split, were they broken or did the SNP cleave them in two ?
« Last Edit: August 07, 2012, 08:20:44 PM by Jdean » Logged

Y-DNA R-DF49*
MtDNA J1c2e
Kit No. 117897
Ysearch 3BMC9

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #15 on: August 07, 2012, 08:45:12 PM »

@Jdean

I am deathly afraid of creating cluster categories because I think everyone will want his cluster or pseudo-cluster recognized.

I like the terminal SNP route.

I can understand that, it's why I suggested well defined clusters but even then you have the fuzzy edges and then other less well defined groups would want inclusion, where do you stop ?

I agree with RMS on this. There are plenty of SNPs to keep him busy classifying people in the project. The problem with STR based clusters is the gray areas and even seemingly well defined clusters have them around the edges. I've even seen what I thought was a well defined cluster broken into two. They were just converging groups.

If you want clusters and accept the fuzziness, I've got plenty of that in the spreadsheet I maintain that uses STR signatures I call speculative varieties.


That's what I said in it ? ;)

I'd be interested in the clusters that got split, were they broken or did the SNP cleave them in two ?

We need to find more SNPs, particularly for M222, 1030-A-Sc (Scots), 1511-T2 (Irish II), Irish IV and 9919.  I think WTY is the option. I know the Scots are lined up for this. I don't know about the rest.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Jdean
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 678


« Reply #16 on: August 07, 2012, 09:06:29 PM »

@Jdean

I am deathly afraid of creating cluster categories because I think everyone will want his cluster or pseudo-cluster recognized.

I like the terminal SNP route.

I can understand that, it's why I suggested well defined clusters but even then you have the fuzzy edges and then other less well defined groups would want inclusion, where do you stop ?

I agree with RMS on this. There are plenty of SNPs to keep him busy classifying people in the project. The problem with STR based clusters is the gray areas and even seemingly well defined clusters have them around the edges. I've even seen what I thought was a well defined cluster broken into two. They were just converging groups.

If you want clusters and accept the fuzziness, I've got plenty of that in the spreadsheet I maintain that uses STR signatures I call speculative varieties.


That's what I said in it ? ;)

I'd be interested in the clusters that got split, were they broken or did the SNP cleave them in two ?

We need to find more SNPs, particularly for M222, 1030-A-Sc (Scots), 1511-T2 (Irish II), Irish IV and 9919.  I think WTY is the option. I know the Scots are lined up for this. I don't know about the rest.

Waiting on yet another 1030 Scot right now, seriously their are so many of them we've got to find a proper defining SNP soon !!!!

After that there's Jim Wilson but he keeps his cards far to close to his chest :(

« Last Edit: August 07, 2012, 09:14:08 PM by Jdean » Logged

Y-DNA R-DF49*
MtDNA J1c2e
Kit No. 117897
Ysearch 3BMC9

Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.103 seconds with 18 queries.