RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => The Lighter Side => Topic started by: gedb2b on Sunday 19 January 14 20:09 GMT (UK)
-
I know the subject of name gatherers or body snatchers, call it what you will has been covered in numerous threads before but I have recently had someone copy quite a bit of information from a family tree. The information was such that I was really curious why it was wanted and if there was a branch of the family we had missed so I had a quick check on their tree and found that it listed 56,555 individual people.
I just cannot understand how anybody can control a tree with that amount of people (I struggle with 300) I am absolutely astounded surely this must be some sort of record, unless of course somebody knows different.
-
I suppose if you followed every lead to the nth degree eventually you would have a huge number of people.
In my tree, which covers mine and my husbands family, I have nearly 1700 people now. Some people may think that's too many. It's grown to that size because, when I find a new direct ancestor, I find myself always wanting to know what happened to their brothers and sisters and then their nieces and nephews.
I suppose if you pursued this long enough and doggedly enough you would end up with a truly massive number.
-
I suppose I've been going fairly full-tilt for about 15 years now. I do explore 'sideways' because the family of a sibling often gives me information about my direct line that I wouldn't have found otherwise. Because of this, I seem to have over 5000 people in my tree, but (please believe me on this) they are all perfectly genuine research. I suppose that, if you keep going long enough, this is bound to happen.
I must say that I get very upset when people accuse me of 'name gathering' because of the size of the tree. It's just to do with the amount of research.....
-
I, too, tend to want to know about all branches of my family! ::)
My tree, which combines both maternal and paternal lines, now has 2700 people - but that's because some of my ancestors were breeding like rabbits!! ;D ;D
Over 55,000 people is just plain silly!
-
I am with Ilona here ......... having been doing it since 1972 or thereabouts and because my parents were 1st cousins 8) 8) the search field is not very large and the present total is just over 1200 but every one has been verified which as you would know is costly.
How people have such large trees is beyond me ...... they must be very very rich. :o :o
Of course a lot of folk just search fo a name which fits their needs and plonk it into their tree .... I had one old aunt who was penniless,born in Berkshire and travelled back and forth to America or so someone thought. ::) ::)
Joe
-
I just cannot understand how anybody can control a tree with that amount of people
'Control' is the issue here, of course, because they can't. They just keep adding names but no substance. And, of course, there is no guarantee that those names are even correct.
I'm sure the majority of RC'ers consider their trees to be a lot more than just names and dates. That is the relatively easy part. The difficult but more rewarding part is finding out about their ancestors lives and with 56,000 people you know they won't be doing that.
I have 'control' over my tree and 'know' my ancestors that I have found so far and I'm 'getting to know' their children but it's a long, hard slog. But I get a lot more satisfaction out of that than just name-gathering.
Rishile
-
I've been researching mine and my husband's tree for about 12 years and between both families I only have 3248 individuals in 930 families. I do go sideways frequently and if I find them interesting I'll look at families of brothers and sisters of the person on the direct line. I don't know how anyone can have over 55,000 individuals in their tree. I have BMDs for many of them, plus wills, copies of parish records etc. etc. plus photographs that 4th cousins had that I hadn't of my direct ancestors - how crazy is that.
-
I've been searching my tree for 3 years now, I think in the beginning I went flat out and searched everybody, following all hints and ended up with hundreds of names but recently I'm on consentrating on closer relatives and in so doing the numbers have slowed.
-
Hi All ! I'm a relative newbie to genealogy. 'Mucking around' until about 3 years ago when I joined Ancestry, I now have 2382 members for two trees and 928 photos. (mug-shots, certificate images and related photos) All substanciated by Roots Chat, distant family members and other forums.
I too believe that it's totally logical that researching distant relatives provides much needed info to confirm the main line. ..., Iain.
-
I have a ’tight’ tree with direct bloodlines only
Tree number 2 is including my wife’s tree
Tree number 3 is the tree my son-in-law brought to the marriage.
Tree number 4 is ALL the marriage links [siblings, cousins, links to links etc.]
The first 2 add up to 435
Tree number 3 adds it up to 658
And the final one adds it up to over 3000.
I have seen some amazing claims on various trees with figures in 5 digits., and people with a ‘direct line’ to Adam and Eve!. [7 billion + cousins? LOL]
-
I can't believe how often this subject comes up and how it is always met with expressions of smug superiority. People are different. Some have interests that are different from yours and, for that matter, different from mine. There are people who like forests and people who like trees. So what?
-
…... plus photographs that 4th cousins had that I hadn't of my direct ancestors - how crazy is that.
Changing the topic a bit.
That remark about the photographs reminded me that some of the best photos of my direct ancestors have come from cousins simply because when my direct ancestors were sending photos 'back home' they always sent the best ones. My parents didn't take that many photos - perhaps a roll or two a year - and the nicest went into the Christmas letters. Most of the ones I inherited tended to be a bit out of focus or odd for one reason or another.
-
I guess that I fit into the definition of being 'smug' ..... I cant help the fact that I well may and I do not excuse myself.
I do try very hard to 'maintain the objective' and in so doing I keep an enormous amount of detail pertaining to both 'trees and forests' in the sincere hope that in those forests I shall find the links to my particular tree.
Joe
-
I've seen many of these threads while I've been on Rootschat. Maybe it is time to 'fess up!
I have been researching my tree for over 25 years and have over 8500 people - that is not deliberate, it is just where my research has taken me.
I research my direct line and siblings plus descendants. I would consider them to be blood relatives no matter how distant - I do also research step lines because they are closely connected and tell part of the life of my ancestors. I have benefitted hugely from taking this approach - if I hadn't I would have missed out on:
1. A photograph of my 4xggrandmother who died in 1861
2. A grammar book belonging to my 4xggrandfather with his copperplate handwriting
3. The date and time of birth of my 3xggrandfather - neatly written by 4xggran in the back of the above grammar book
4. Strong friendship with distant cousins one of whom has spent Xmas day with us for the last 3 years.
5. A family get together where there is a wonderful group photograph of the eldest (96 years) holding the youngest (6 weeks)
These are just my top 5 - if I'm a name collector I'm happy to be one!! :) - so don't judge people. I've had my tree "annexed" and seen other incorrect information linking to my tree - but I know that I've researched the information as well as I could at the time. And if it's wrong, tell me!
Jean
-
Thank you VERY much for your post, Jean :)
Like you, if I hadn't gone sideways/steps/siblings families etc, I would have missed out on much of the great information I now have.
I doubt if my 5500+ tree will grow very quickly from here, but I'm expecting to be able to flesh it out a bit more.
On the other hand - if I find another direct ancestor further back, I shall try to trace all his/her descendents so the tree will take another jump in size. It's absolutely fascinating going back and then forward again to see what happened to everyone.
Angela
-
Over 55,000 people is just plain silly!
I only come across a tree today that had .... 176,981 people :o
Now that is extreme ;D
-
Thank you VERY much for your post, Jean :)
Like you, if I hadn't gone sideways/steps/siblings families etc, I would have missed out on much of the great information I now have.
I doubt if my 5500+ tree will grow very quickly from here, but I'm expecting to be able to flesh it out a bit more.
On the other hand - if I find another direct ancestor further back, I shall try to trace all his/her descendents so the tree will take another jump in size. It's absolutely fascinating going back and then forward again to see what happened to everyone.
Angela
Thank you Angela,
And amongst my more famous distant relatives:
Gertie Girtana
John Warburton Beckett MP
But interesting would be the model farm in the 1800's demonstrated by one of my ancestors....it's the flesh on the bones if you can get it.....
-
I take a similar approach to JDGen though my tree is not as large; not yet, at least. In time, I may get there. I do so mostly for the fun of the hunt and because some of the peripheral people are more interesting than the main line. I don't excluded step-parents, foster parents or adopted children because they are part of the family scene. It's an 'ecosystem' view. In fact, I even do mini background searches on unrelated people who come into the story - for example, gg-uncle Frank's law partner or hired hands on the farm. Who were they? Where were they from? They don't attach to the tree, but they go into the notes because they're part of the environment.
-
Good evening,
The demolition squads other grandfather has his own web site. This contains his family tree to which he added ours when his son, my daughter started a family. I have no idea how many there are on his actual tree but his data base of Mitchell's, and spelling derivatives, comes to about 12,400.
The most telling thing is that he doesn't deal with the sideways movement, or the lines coming back to the present. Only the direct line back. If he did his tree would be just as huge as some of these others.
You end up not so much with a tree but more the whole b ;D :o :o ;D ;y forest.
John915
-
Although admittedly some large trees are a joke obviously run by name collectors, I wouldn't discount a tree just because it's large. I have over 40,000 people in my database because it's based on a village and the people who have lived there through the ages. It has taken many years to put together using all sorts of different records and each person has been researched to the best of ability
-
Although admittedly some large trees are a joke obviously run by name collectors, I wouldn't discount a tree just because it's large. I have over 40,000 people in my database because it's based on a village and the people who have lived there through the ages. It has taken many years to put together using all sorts of different records and each person has been researched to the best of ability
I think that is a very good approach ..... keeping them in a database rather than your tree ......... someday you may/will find a link or two to add to your tree.
I have a similar method by keeping all possible items in a spreadsheet that contains specific entries of name variations 'over time' which relate to my surname (which is uncommon).
Some of these go back to early 1500's but will not be added to my tree until I can verify.
Joe
-
Reading this thread makes me wonder if I'm odd . It has never occurred to me to count mine and neither do I have the inclination to do so lol.
-
a-l
Most of us don't actually count the number of ancestors we have, the number is just shown on our family tree programs - well at least it is on mine, Legacy. It shows me how many individual ancestors and how many families I've added to my tree. Unless the program did that, I wouldn't bother to count them and I guess most other people wouldn't either.
-
Lizzie thankyou for explaining that , I thought it was strange people counting their ancestors lol. kind regards Sue who doesn't have her ancestry online.
-
I can't believe how often this subject comes up and how it is always met with expressions of smug superiority. People are different. Some have interests that are different from yours and, for that matter, different from mine. There are people who like forests and people who like trees. So what?
I agree...It's personal choice...lots of people take hobbies to the extreme and there are a lot of lonely and housebound people out there for whom it is a pleasurable pastime. Each to his own. You can put as much or as little into your family research as you like.
Carol
-
Reading this thread makes me wonder if I'm odd . It has never occurred to me to count mine and neither do I have the inclination to do so lol.
You are not at all odd.
I have no idea how many I have, nor have any wish to know.
But I do know that each one has been/is being/or will be thoroughly researched so that the info about them is correct and that I find out absolutely everything I possibly can about them so I 'know' them, they are not just a name in a list.
-
I so agree with you lizdb ,people not numbers.
-
I can't understand quite why/how anyone would merely "name-collect". I've not thought about how many "names" are on my trees - and I suppose it's a bit of a distinction that NONE of them are famous - but I can get fascinated exploring siblings of direct lines, and parentage of spouses who have married in.
Often that can clarify why some odd name appears - it's a surname a few generations earlier, or something.
Also, sidelines can help - people apparently unrelated to the Householder, listed merely as "lodger" have some times turned out to be related, cousins, stepchildren, nephews, etc - even parents-in-law - so I tend to keep lots of index-cards of fairly well proved information.
I can't quite see, though, quite why people seem to "adopt" whole chunks of other people's trees. Just because it "looks possible" isn't research, is it? Even with trees I now know I'm linked with, I still prefer to hack through on my own - although I'm grateful for suggestions, and guidance from people on here, and delighted when they work out, to feel I've actually found it out and then checked it out as well as I can, before even thinking of setting it out as "Fact".
We've all ended up with "Wrong" certificates that fitted so well. Some people write that down to experience, and pick themselves up and start again.
Others can do wonderful convolutions to make facts fit - launching ancestors to the other end of the country ( with different birthplace, spouse and children) for one census, before apparently abandoning them to return home for the next! Perhaps this also can assist the "Ancestor-adders"?
-
"I can't understand ...."
As I said, it's because different people are interested in different things. By way of analogy, many people collect shells [I'm one of them] but not all collections are the same. Some people are very specialized and focus on absolutely perfect specimens of only one family; some have shells from only one place; some collect whatever they can get their hands on. Some people have a scientific interest in the specimens; some look at them as natural art objects. There's nothing wrong with one approach or another. It is, after all, just a hobby.
-
No there is nothing wrong with different appraoches. The shell collecting comparison is good.
What is wrong (or at least to my mind) is when someone then presents their tree as fact, when it has not been researched at all, just names taken from someone elses because it seems to vaguely fit, or the only person that comes up on Familysearch with that name so it must be the right person.
And then peoples trees come up on research websites alongside original sources such as census returns and bmd registers and prs - and these days the only way (and certainly the easiest) way to access these vital documents is via such websites. The line between fact (or at least survivng records from which to try to ascertain the facts) and fantasy (which some online trees are) is getting blurred.
To use the shell collecting comparison, it is like someone sharing their collection on a leading shell collecting website (if there is such a thing) and stating that this one is an x and this one is a y, etc, when it is totally erroneus. Some other person who has a lax approach and little knowledge and no desire to research ( and there is nothing wrong with that appraoch if that is how they want to do their shell collecting) thinks "Ive got one of them,it must be an x or a y" and then label their picture on the shell collectors website as such. A few more copy it. And fact and fiction soon get blurred.
-
Lizdb, how much I agree.
The trees we sometimes see online that get us wanting to say " that can't be so, because..." often seem to be so much the result of sloppy research, not checking things out PROPERLY.
Online resources can be a great help and starting place, but - come on, some really don't seem to have checked anything about them out! I have seen real "howlers" - people living for 160 years, children "born" before their parents, etc. COPIED from one tree to another, without apparently being spotted!
With the original person, that may well have been a "mistype", but it's so obvious with later ones that slabs have merely been copied wholesale.
This sort of thing can lead people to compound their own errors, especially when we are starting out and eager to get that tree growing. And that can lead to frustration later, when you realise how you've grasped at a very wrong straw.
Perhaps there should be another term for these trees? I like your "Fantasy Trees". Perhaps we could all get back to Adam and Eve ( or even Lilith?) that way?
-
"Fantasy Trees"
Caveat emptor.