Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tree sizes again.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Tree sizes again.

    On another Site a member asks how can you have 4500 ancestors and only 2 records? Reading further posts I notice someone with 17000 family members.....................how do you look up someone with a Tree that big and I presume there's little chance of printing the whole tree.
    I responded by asking how could you be reasonably related to so many people...............I just cant envisage that.
    Perhaps Members here who have huge Trees can comment.

  • #2
    I have nearly 15,000 people in my tree. The way I search is by using the index of people in FTM. Easy.

    I have several off shoots from my direct line so that adds more people, plus, as most of my ancestors come from the Isle of Wight, then I have found that a very large proportion of Islanders are related to me! The same would apply to a small village.
    Wendy



    PLEASE SCAN AT 300-600 DPI FOR RESTORATION PURPOSES. THANK YOU!

    Comment


    • #3
      I agree with Wendy. I have several large trees (more than 5000 people). Two of them are "village trees" because as Wendy points out, in small villages pre 1900, everyone is related and more often than not, related several times and in several different ways! These trees are the result of over 40 years work and they are not copied from anyone else. Although my trees ore not on GR, if they were, they too would show up as having very few "records" because I am lazy about putting sources on my online trees (I have the sources in my offline notes).

      As the poster on GR stated : I am not a name collector, I am a data collector!

      OC

      Comment


      • #4
        Alan, I have 4,700 on my tree but it is my husband's family as well as mine. I have many many records on the trees, if you have 4,500 with 2 records I feel you would have to doubt the validity of the tree. 17,000 is mind blowing. I have been researching for over 25 years and go over and over my trees to ensure I've got it right and if there is any new records available. I have recently gone back to some early names I put in by people who were related and knew their great aunts and uncles and I'm now putting records to them or marking them as no proof.

        Tora

        Comment


        • #5
          I should point out that not everyone constructs their tree on GR! GR has only relatively recently had the facility to link to its records and I would imagine many people haven't bothered hacking through the GR records just to make that link on their tree.

          The tree (200 people) I put on GR in its early days doesn't have a single record attached to it. It is correct though!

          OC

          Comment


          • #6
            My research has developed into "family studies" rather than just my ancestors and I have 4 or 5 trees of differing sizes, totalling 10,000+ individuals. On two lines I have an early 1700's second marriage, meaning that my ancestor had two families. In both cases, the parallel line fared better and led far more interesting lives than my branch. I add all these people to my family tree software and can locate them easily and quickly in the database. I try to include all references/sources as I go along. I don't have any of this on line, only a very old skeleton tree on GR, with no notes, for contact reasons only.
            I use the software to generate reports (which include all references and source data) on individuals - these are what I share with contacts if appropriate.

            I would never make all my material freely available on the internet - I might include thousands of people, in the hope of making contacts, but the source material and references (which have cost a lot of money and needed thousands of hours over the years) would NOT be included. So, I would have very few records on show. Would it bother me that people would assume my research is "poor?" Not at all - I know it's of a good standard and so do those I care to share it with. Unfortunately, some of those are the ones who have chosen to put it on public trees, along with all the data to back it up!

            Jay
            Janet in Yorkshire



            Genealogists never die - they just swap places in the family tree

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Olde Crone Holden View Post
              I should point out that not everyone constructs their tree on GR! GR has only relatively recently had the facility to link to its records and I would imagine many people haven't bothered hacking through the GR records just to make that link on their tree.

              The tree (200 people) I put on GR in its early days doesn't have a single record attached to it. It is correct though!

              OC
              Me too! My original research was documented in paper and does not show on an online tree as I was lazy and didn't note sources on my software but I do have it if anyone is interested but I find that those that copied my tree when it was public on ancestry were not bothered!
              Margaret

              Comment


              • #8
                Yet again - I agree with Jay. I couldn't care less if people assume my trees are wrong without bothering to contact me to find out what's what. My GR tree is a "fishing net" designed to attract contacts, not intended to be a complete and accurate portrayal of my tree. No one, except my brother, is ever going to get the information about ALL of my tree. Proper contacts will get the bit which concerns them.

                Nor would I ever copy anyone else's tree, assuming it was correct JUST because it had valid refs and sources. The only way to check whether a tree is accurate or not is to research it yourself, using their info as a guide.

                For my own personal family tree I use Tribal Pages. That has a very useful tool which shows whether you have a blood relationship with anyone in the tree and you might be surprised at how far sideways and back that can take you.

                I also park on that tree other research I have done which doesn't yet have a proven link. This might be useful to other people and no one has ever said "Oh no, I don't want your research findings if you are not related to these people".

                OC

                Comment


                • #9
                  Me too. I don't have an online tree at the moment but the thought of attaching sources to an online tree when I've already done it on my own digital tree is too offputting. Most of my 5000 plus individuals have more than one source attached to them. That's a LOT!!!

                  However .... here's a thought. I'm not planning on leaving this mortal world any time soon but at some point I might consider putting all my research on a public tree like Ancestry. I'm not sure what my family would do with all my research (they are interested but not active in family history!!) and I don't want it to all be for nothing. An alternative would be to have my own website which I could do through Family Historian but when the web payments lapsed so would the site. Putting all my trees on Ancestry could mean that the information is there for evermore. There would probably be no sources because I'm not sure how well the Ancestry tree accepts the Gedcom but people could check up on the same sources I have used if they didn't believe me!
                  Just a thought!!
                  Anne

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I actually have found it rather interesting that nobody has researched any of my family trees to the depth that I have, at least not online anywhere! And this is after searches on Ancestry, GR, FMP and other online sites. The Northants names are interesting in that most people researching the same families have got all the census, but none of the birth/baptism dates correct, as all are researching census only!! You can tell by the approximate dates that people have not researched properly.

                    I even have a Swedish person quoting all the wrong things from a so called Source which is totally innaccurate! The source has a Great Aunt born in Dieppe of Italian parentage!! In fact she was born in the UK of an English father and an Irish mother and she was sister to my grandmother. All this has even been misquoted on Wikipedia because the person concerned was a Swedish inventor of the sulphite method of making paper. Although he was my Great Uncle, he was a Great Uncle only by marriage to my bloodline Great Aunt. I have noted their marriage and obviously the children, who were cousins, and for interest only the parents of my Great Uncle, but to continue going back on his line would be pointless as they are NOT my relatives. I am sure that a lot of people do go back on these non connection lines, creating thousands of names on a tree, totally meaningless unless you are doing a village survey or a named study or some other project. However, on my Irish side my Great Grandfather married my Great Grandmother, whose brother married my Great Grandfather's sister, so on that side they are both related and that is another tangle, as eventually 3 siblings from one family married three siblings from another family, so all sides become blood related on the tree and you can then expand your tree greatly! Trees are a minefield in my opinion!

                    Janet

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I have 722 people and more than half don't have a source but that's because I've found them on FreeBDM, Durham Records Online, Stockton Roots, Scotland's People and so forth, I have slowly been going through the tree leaving little notes of where I've found the records.

                      My Nanna Tubridy's half brother and his Grandson have done a tree that is more Royalty than Tubridy with no hint of sources, most of the Tubridy's are noted as private and if you click my great grandfather's name and then the 4th child followed by the 6th and 4th again you get me. We are Nanna's only Grandchildren on that tree, ours is Private so I have no idea why we are on it or why we are the only ones there. I have noticed that the pictures I had shared are on that tree- to different people than the ones we were told. It's pretty easy to find on Mundia by just searching his name Thomas Tubridy.
                      Lennon. Phillips. Thomas. Peacock. Tubridy. Burton.

                      I am the girl from that town & I'm darn proud of it.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Sarah, in the case of those you found on FreeBMD, Durham records etc. That is your source until you find something better (or something which disproves the information). Its a great idea to go back over them and add the places you found the information. Believe me ... there's NOTHING more frustrating than coming back to a person after several years and finding you didn't put down where you found the info. Been there, gone back over it all again!!!
                        Anne

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I think it's because I'm starting to forget where I found those details that I'm making a little comment "Found on FreeBDM" and so forth. Plus it feels like I'm just making random dates up if I don't state that.
                          Lennon. Phillips. Thomas. Peacock. Tubridy. Burton.

                          I am the girl from that town & I'm darn proud of it.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I too do not always have "sources" - some I definitely know are correct from personal knowledge and the others I have seen the sources - quite often I put a note "partially viewed source". This may not sound very satisfactory but it seems to work ...............so far. If I am unsure of a person or a detail then I put "unsure" in notes. I then know to check that one thoroughly when I have a membership.
                            As to size of Tree - I have just amalgamated two Trees (very boring and longwinded - actually thought I would die of boredom) but it is done now and I sincerely hope I haven't missed anyone off in the amalgamation. The amalgamation has given me an opportunity whilst doing this to double check on each one.
                            I do have a lot of branches to the Tree that are not direct line but cousins removed a few times BUT for main line I type them in capitals.
                            I still believe that pictures are worth a thousand words and have many!
                            I have a few brick walls also - more than I want I'm afraid.

                            Sue

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I have four ancestry trees (one for each of my parents and in-laws and their families) - but they are all in one big database in my computer, almost 17000 all together. The main direct lines are documented and sourced, but some of the farther out branches are lacking sources. I don't think I have attached many photos or documents to the ancestry trees, but have added some stories and newspaper articles.

                              I have one speculative tree on ancestry, I cannot prove the family links, but I put it on ancestry so I could link the census records and hopefully find someone else researching the families who might help me put it together.
                              Diane
                              Sydney Australia
                              Avatar: Reuben Edward Page and Lilly Mary Anne Dawson

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                I appreciate all your comments and interesting to read of your different approaches. At the end of the day, it's what suits you that matters. I hadn't looked too closely at my Tree for ages having had it professionally printed. Now I notice some glaring mistakes, a duplication and I'm scared to look for more................it's an age thing with me!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X