RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: clairec666 on Friday 01 September 17 11:09 BST (UK)
-
Just wondering how people record all the "possible" relatives in their tree - particularly which software do you use (I haven't found anything satisfactory yet).
For example, if you've found a possible baptism for your ancestor but you're not 100% sure, do you add their parents and siblings to your tree? And what about all the nieces/nephews/grandchildren who appear on the censuses but you haven't found the connection yet?
I think we'll all agree that Ancestry and Findmypast trees aren't very good at storing your "maybes" which results in lots of wrong information being copied! So if you choose to have a public tree, how do you deal with this?
Cheers all :)
-
I treat my Ancestry tree as a workbook so add my current best guess to the tree and research it as though it were fact. The hint system, though much maligned, is really helpful for this type of thing. I'm also hoping that someone will come along and say "Hey, you've got that wrong, it's this" but no luck so far.
Yes, my doodlings could be copied as fact, but that doesn't concern me.
I have a purer tree in offline software at home. It's not brilliant for tentative relationships, but it's where I keep those unknown cousins etc and I set a goal of clearing one of them a month.
-
If i find an event that *could* be my ancestor's, I add it to the Notes section and only add the event to the main listing once it was confirmed
Any possible connections relating to that event would be recorded in a separate tree as "possible xxx" and only added into the main tree once a definite connection was established
-
Once I have their name and then find a very likely baptism I add a note in the profile with something like "A Susan Riches was baptised in 1694 and after a careful study she seems the likeliest but not yet confirmed".
One friend of mine who is a keen genealogist said that sometimes you just have to make assumptions based on the likeliest. I am not so sure about doing that. But all my tree is open for review if the situation arose for one line.
-
I don't have an online tree but offline I've used FTM for years. It allows you to add unrelated individuals so I do that and build up their tree, merging them in if a link is found. If I don't find the link on the same day as I add them I put a note on the person I think they're linked in with (eg "possible wife Mary Smith").
Jane :-)
-
I keep a paper file of notes about unidentified connections, and try to check them out every so often - eg currently one reads '1861 George Edward, grandson - whose son???' and is listed under the grandfather's name - should be fairly easy, only 5 possible dads! Much easier than the ones headed 'which website did I find .....'?
With possible events I now put a note with the event saying things like 'possible', 'most likely', 'see also...' - sadly some errors I made in the beginning on Ancestry were just copied straight to other trees - these I at least try to notify when I find them. If anything on my tree now has my note suggesting the event is not definite I figure if it's copied as 100% fact subsequently it's not my problem. After all, if someone copies the event, they can surely read what it actually says in the description box!
-
One friend of mine who is a keen genealogist said that sometimes you just have to make assumptions based on the likeliest. I am not so sure about doing that.
I think this dilemma increases as one works back in time, and also with the non-rarity of surnames. Dates after 1837 (England) are probably pretty reliable, although ages given in the census can sometimes surprise or confuse. I am lucky that most of my ancestors had fairly unusual surnames and were mostly from small villages, which helps a lot. My wife is rather less fortunate.
I think each of us has our own level of doubt, at which point we may add a question-mark or hesitate to add a name to our tree, but pre-registration I nearly always feel open to correction. Some public trees seem to have very low doubt thresholds, however.
-
If I'm unsure of any information on my on-line tree I add it to the notes explaining why I'm uncertain or that I don't have confirmed sources to back up my assumption.
If people chose to use my research but don't add my caveat to their own tree its up to them.
You can always add sources and confirmation at a later date.
-
One friend of mine who is a keen genealogist said that sometimes you just have to make assumptions based on the likeliest. I am not so sure about doing that.
I think this dilemma increases as one works back in time, and also with the non-rarity of surnames. Dates after 1837 (England) are probably pretty reliable, although ages given in the census can sometimes surprise or confuse. I am lucky that most of my ancestors had fairly unusual surnames and were mostly from small villages, which helps a lot. My wife is rather less fortunate.
I think each of us has our own level of doubt, at which point we may add a question-mark or hesitate to add a name to our tree, but pre-registration I nearly always feel open to correction. Some public trees seem to have very low doubt thresholds, however.
I often do a very careful study of possible baptisms and try and hone in on what is the likeliest ancestor. That is why wills, land tax, poor law, military and newspaper records on top of parish registers need to be relied on more.
In 1725 my ancestor Susan Riches wed Henry Helsdon and after a careful study of the possible ones and their parents, it seems the 1694 one is the best one, or the 1691 one, and I found out through the will of the grandfather of the 1694 one that she and the 1691 one are first cousins. A bit of a relief actually as they both descend from the same grandparents.
-
I keep the "maybe" tree on GenesReunited and the "proven" one on Ancestry which has so many more members - so the risk of people copying any "mistakes" from GR is quite small: few people can see my tree. Any doubtful relatives are mentioned as such in the "Notes" box.
Anyway I get fewer and fewer messages and so-called Hot Matches from GR these days - anyone else find this?
-
Everyone probably has their own system and you need to find one that works for you but here's what I usually do.
My family tree (yes trees- hundreds) are done in Word. This way I can add, delete or edit anything, print out portions of a tree, etc. Usually at the end of the document I include those maybes- sometimes a single person but others it could be a large family group. If I'm printing out my tree for someone I wouldn't always include those maybes unless I think they can help attached or rule them out.
This week I'd a perfect example of finding that some maybes were relatives :)
In the 1970s I copied (from microfilm) all the people with the same surname born in Germany in the U.S. town my grandmother's family lived in America. When I mentioned these random people (about 6 families) she told me several were cousins of her mother and that her grandfather had relatives there already when he arrived in America. For years these 6 families stayed unattached at the end of the Word document.
Now, with more Germany church registers online I have confirmed beyond a doubt that 5 of the families are my relatives and am working on the last remaining maybes. I've also discovered that at least 1 other of those families only lived in U.S. between census records and returned to Germany and can now identify children in several old (labelled) German photographs.
-
I put any maybes in the notes file of the individual. If I research the family further (usually to try and find any wills or links that might prove the connection) I sketch it out on paper in a notebook, and summarise in the notes file, so that if I come back to it in a few years I haven't forgotten it all! I used to add the person as 'poss. John Smith' into the tree, but I prefer the system I'm using now.
-
Thanks for everyone's replies - it's interesting to hear all the different methods people use.
I'm interested because I've written my own software to store my family tree and am trying to find a good way to incorporate my "maybes". I store most of my "maybe" information in the notes section, but some of them are getting a bit overloaded with information so I'm looking for a better way to record it.
-
For instance I have a Henry Teager/Tago who wed in 1698 in Hoxne, Suffolk. He was of Earl Soham and his wife Rachel South of Hoxne. The name is rare and in 1667 a Henry Tego was baptised in Framingham Pigot, just south of Norwich, son of Christopher and Mary. So far this is the only baptism I have found but Norfolk is much more covered online than Suffolk. Cannot find any trace of the 1667 Henry after then nor any trace of my Henry before 1698. One of my "maybes". My henry had children called Edward, Elizabeth and Mary. Anc, FreeREG and the genealogist have a lot of Norfolk records indexed but Suffolk coverage online is a mere dusting in comparison.
-
Well keep looking as I may have cracked the case with my Elizabeth Harbord who wed Dennis Helsdon in Norwich in 1752. I eliminated the one born in 1733 to Robert and Rebecca Harbord. She wed a different spouse.
I just spent a few hours checking Norwich church rates and a Benjamin Harbord is listed from 1761 to 1765 in the rates at St Peter Parmentergate, Norwich, (where Eliz married Dennis Helsdon and lived for years afterwards). Benjamin died in January 1766 aged 65 and in the 1766 church rates a Sarah Harbord is then listed. Sarah Harbord married in September 1766 to Thomas Dewing and Dennis Helsdon was one of the witnesses. And Eliz and Dennis Helsdon had a son Benjamin Helsdon.
A Benjamin Harbord wed Mary Budery in 1724 in Norwich. So they seem a very likely candidate for the parents of Elizabeth. Cannot find any wills left by Sarah, Eliz, Benjamin or Mary though.
I know Norwich has registers of paupers and vagrants 1754 onwards and I looked once and am sure I saw some Harbord's listed so will check again next time. Shows that many, many informative records are not online and are tucked away in microfilm and fiche in archives and RO's.
-
'Maybes' do not get on my tree and like rebeccaclaire86 information is put in my notes along with copies of any records I have found, no one gets in my tree until I am sure they should be there
-
Using RootsMagic, I usually add possible relatives to the database as I find them but do not link them to the family until I find other supporting evidence. I have quite a collection of these 'orphans', but will only delete them if I find clear evidence they are wrong.
For uncertain facts/events I add them to the individual's record with a 'possible' comment in the notes section.
As I only share sections of my tree very selectively it is unlikely to confuse anyone . . . apart from me :)
Mike.
-
Where the research is visible online, I insert comments about the state of the research, such as "There are 3 likely baptisms for this James", and quoting the details, so I can locate the events again. James's date of birth will be entered with "circa". Other comments might relate to likely siblings, or things like "If they followed convention, his father is likely to be Edward". When people are proved to be "wrong", I tend to leave them in the data, but with a comment explain WHY they are wrong. One of those three baptisms has already been crossed off the list of possibles!
Unfortunately, Ancestry strips out all these useful comments when I upload. RootsWeb keeps them.
Most of my "maybe" entries are held entirely offline in a separate database. For example, I have more than one interest in the Bullough surname in families to the south of Bolton, so I have a database holding Bulloughs. Within there are a few imaginary people to help tie them together. So there's an "Atherton Bullough", a "Westhoughton Bullough" and a "Leigh Bullough". The earliest person in any branch can then be placed as a child of one of these. If a father is then located, he would be inserted in between. Someone who was a son of "Atherton" may become a grandson of "Leigh". This geographical connection helps when searching for siblings.