User talk:BostonGwen23

Hello. You seem to be filling in a lot of HapMap info, which is usually done by a bot, not by a human. You also seem to be supplying degrees of precision which are impossible given the small size of the HapMap project. Where do your numbers from from? --- cariaso 00:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

After I started seeing a number of my genotypes were 0.0 - painfully useless - and I started to look them up on dbSNP, I started to understand that HapMap was too coarse to identify smaller precision, as you said. So when there was another population frequency listed in dbSNP which was more plausible, I took that to be the more useful data. At times also I calculated what would undoubtedly be too small numbers for the HapMap project using Hardy Weinberg as I figured that it would provide a more useful and reasonable approximation for some of these 0 values. Given the poor accuracy of the numbers I was looking at and decided to edit (I exist, and yet my genotype is listed as 0.0% frequency) I thought this seemed a step in the right direction.

Is there a way to include a "predicted" genotype frequency given the allelic frequencies observed - to me at least, the frequency number should be helpful to tell people "how rare is this?" and if you are homozygous for a minor allele, the predicted frequency would be a far more valuable number for comparing things (eg - something that is predicted at 0.004 is far rarer than something 0.4, but both show the same now). This would also help to smooth out some of the oddities of hapmap, and provide a reference useful for someone of a mixed heritage.