Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How does everyone record their family tree?

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

  • How does everyone record their family tree?

    As I am getting further back, and the family is getting larger, it's beginning to get quite complicated keeping track of my tree on Ancestry and trying to pinpoint where I have got to and which branches still need looking at.

    I was wondering how everyone records their family tree and if anyone had any tips on how to keep track of it? I'd love to keep a hard copy but I always seem to run out of room! I was thinking of keeping a log or book to keep track of the story of each ancestor. Does anyone else do this?

    Selina

  • #2
    I record my lineage using a family tree program Brothers Keeper.
    In addition I keep paper records.

    As I do not like any of the computer generated trees from any of the programs (they all take up too much space) I have compiled a tree manually using Word.
    A basic version of it is downloadable at

    This was uploaded in 1998 and covers the period from 1450 to 1985 on four sheets of A4 paper.

    I have other trees for collateral lines and more complicated trees for the main line all developed in the same format.
    Cheers
    Guy
    Guy passed away October 2022

    Comment


    • #3
      There are various software programmes you can buy if you do not want to do your own as Guy has suggested. I use Family Historian as I like the format, which gives me the option of adding photos, census, all certificates and notes for every person. As I state I am the root person, everybody on the tree is automaticaly categorised to me as being Uncle or wife of uncle or sister or 4th cousin twice removed etc so I instantly know what the relationship is without having to work it out, which I like. The charts are instant, once you click on a tree to sort out, and the personal profile is also done instantly from the notes you have written and can run into 10 or more pages on one person in just a few seconds. I find all this useful if I am doing a write up on one of the members in my tree. Family Historian updates every few years and in about 8 years has had just two updates that of FH4 and the up to date one that came out a couple of years ago is FH 5. Other people use Family Tree Maker which seems to have a new one every year although you do not have to purchase one every year but somebody else will tell you about others. I think there is a thread on here about all the available off line programmes.

      I am not a great believer in the online trees, and have only very basic ones on Ancestry and FMP mainly to catch anyone interested in my FH.

      Janet

      Comment


      • #4
        I use Family Historian too. Also I try and keep a basic paper file for each main family with standard 'family group' forms just in case the computer age comes to an end sometime!
        I don't keep any trees online at the moment.
        Anne

        Comment


        • #5
          I started my tree long before computers and the internet and I am still more comfortable with a paper tree than with an online one, although I do have one (several), mostly as fishing bait to catch contacts, but also for sharing (a village tree, a one name tree).

          I have changed my paper tree system many times over the years but the most successful way I've found is by using ahnentafel numbers (google for a better explanation than I can give you!) and then having a dedicated file or folder for each number, along with family groups and individual timelines. A large roll of wallpaper contains an outline tree - this is always being updated, crossed out, stuck together with bits of tape etc, but it does work for me.

          To keep track of what I need to do, or indeed of what I am doing, I have trained myself to use a notebook rather than scribbling on old bank statements etc. I date each page and cross through when I have transferred notes etc to my main tree.

          OC

          Comment


          • #6
            I have started making data base type lists (I use Excel) to keep parish records I have collected over the years. Keeping them like this makes them much more accessible than the notebooks I wrote them down in. Also they are sortable into such lists as surname, date, village, fathers etc, etc.
            This is a mammoth task as I have a dozen thick notebooks to enter! LOL. Now, when I visit an archive or collect parish records from images online they go straight into the database. Thankfully Archives allow laptops to be used.
            Anne

            Comment


            • #7
              Yes, I had neglected to say that I do not use scraps of paper any more, and tend to use notebooks to keep tabs on individuals, except the notebooks are now growing in number, so I have keep tabs on them! It sounds as though Ann's idea above of a database in Excel is a very good idea. I do a Word Version of keeping to do tasks on the computer but paper files are always a good back up in case of hard drive fails of which I have had my share! Whatever paper method you start with, you will find yourself changing tactics as your vast collection of Family History grows!

              Janet
              Last edited by Janet; 04-09-14, 09:47.

              Comment


              • #8
                I often print a chart of my ancestral line from FTM 2012 so I can see where the gaps are and I use that as a worksheet too. It needs printing again periodically to reflect new information that I've found. I find this also has allowed me to have a pictorial image in my mind of who fits where. FTM has features for task lists and extracting lists for whatever you decide to do next eg. find all marriages.

                On my ancestry tree I use the 'list of names' function as another way of keeping track of what's there is still to do - for example I recently set myself the task of finding deaths for all my people named Harper who are my direct line from a grandmother. I also use the ancestry overview of an individual to see their timeline so I can see if censuses have all been found and also look where there are gaps in data.

                I've got a ton of paper which I plan to 'cull' this winter by scanning and then archiving what I want to keep into an organised file with a section for each family group.

                My overall aim to is have a fully documented electronic tree as I think that is how the next generation will want to have it passed on to them.

                Margaret

                Comment


                • #9
                  Wow thank you for all of these tips! I shall be exploring these this weekend!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I use paper to keep my records as I always find using a computer program difficult. When I come to add an entry something goes wrong and I end up with someone having an unexpected wife or I cannot re-arrange the tree easily. When I first started this family search it was long before computers had been invented as we know them today. You cannot beat paper.

                    I have fourteen A2 pages that my late friend Win did for me beautifully written but all in pencil. It would take me years to put them on to a PC.

                    At the end of the day after all that research I do not have a single relation of any kind (except my lovely husband).
                    Margaret N
                    DOGS HAVE OWNERS ~ CATS HAVE STAFF

                    Researching:- WILBURN from Yorkshire/Kings Lynn, London. NEWMAN from Dover/Reading. DOUGHTY from Portsmouth. ROGERS from Bethnal Green. Rumbelow from Norfolk

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The trouble with paper records is that one mistake can mean an awful lot of work to correct.
                      I started with a freeware program called Genopro (not free any longer) which enables the drawing of "bottom up" trees (the line and box sort - but vertical rather than horizontal) which suited me as I was used to taking a mass of data and turning it into graphs to get a feel for it before doing formal statistical analysis.

                      The trouble with this is that the trees can get very complicated very fast - and the only solution is to have lots of trees.
                      The advantage is that one can lay out a horizontal timeline of children from one pair of parents, and see at once where there is a gap that looks like a "missing" child.

                      It was using this that highlighted a problem in the old LDS/Familysearch site that had two families, where the parents had the same name, merged into one. One of them was my line. It took two years to get past this block even though the mistake was obvious once you had seen it (children born years after the parent had died). With a PC I could just cut out the "wrong" bit and paste it into a new file (paper would have meant redrawing everything after (say) 1750). Eventually I found that the two husbands with the same name were cousins who had married girls with the same first name, and I could then paste the "error" back into the main tree and reconnect it. However, I am slowly building a tree in PAF5.

                      My attitude to trees on the web is that if you put your work in a pay-to-view site, you should get something for it. If it represents work that has been shared with others, then you need to get their permission first (in one case, it took a lot of work by two people to prove that we were cousins (3rd cousins), so the other person has an interest in the data).
                      I would rather share work for free by using gedcoms, but I did forward several copies of Genopro to others so that they could look at a tree of common interest in the same way that I did.

                      geoff

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Geoff

                        All the drawbacks you have mentioned for paper trees are far outweighed (for me!) by the ability to instantly see common information, such as who is in the same grave, who are together on census etc, which has led me to make some connections I wouldn't have otherwise seen, probably. It certainly helped me to see that I was dealing with only one man, not three, over a period of 49 years, three marriages and 22 children! It was only by seeing who was in each grave that I finally realised what was going on. I doubt if I would have seen this in the 2d format of an on screen tree.

                        Yes, my paper tree is scruffy in the extreme and I have had to rewrite it several times but I don't mind that because of the instant convenience of being able to see my whole tree at one glance.

                        OC

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I think that you have just made the point that the way that works for you is the best way.

                          My way works for me - and it may well change. I have learned some new tricks (since I joined here), and next week's best way for me could be different. If I could only get rid of some of the paper ...

                          What we don't have is the best genealogy software.
                          I started using a Word Processor called Format 80.
                          Then I used Wordstar.
                          Then I used WordPerfect (still think it was the best one).
                          Now I mostly use Word (and so do most other folk).

                          At least there is no dominant family tree software, so we can still work the way that is right for us.

                          Geoff

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X