When The Tree Becomes a Shrouded Forest

[Lydart]

Gosh and I thought my tree had drifted into the realms of bushes and weeds ! 

I've got 420 names ... and documentation or certainty for about 2/3 of those ...

... the rest are possibles and probables ... which need working on ... one day ... when its winter !

[NEILKE]

i have about 100 names in my tree like to focus on certain lines i have found a lot of off shot branches put dont put them in my tree(we often dicuss mane collecting on roots but no ones ownes up to doing it there must be some lol)
neil

[Just Kia]

Just to add that some people are doing one-name studies.
It's a different task compared to an actual family history and some of those will incur many many individuals - of course there will be many additional surnames as they fill in the spouses. They will also be unlikely to have a close connection to many of the people in their research.
So long as the results of the research are accurate then the number of names shouldn't be an issue.

Of course there are plenty of "trees" that are simply made by adding other people's trees together with little to no care for accuracy what so ever (parents born after children and the like).

I'd rather find a well researched and documented "tree" of 50,000+ rather than one badly done "tree" with no regard for accuracy but only a couple hundred names.

I've got close to 2,000 individuals in my (admittedly very small) one-name study, with several distinct branches that I can not yet find a common ancestor for and so can only claim one branch as being "related to me".

My personal "Family History" has just over 5,000 but does include my husband's side as well as following down some branches other than direct lines (purely because I found them to be interesting) which I guess falls under "name collecting" but hey ho hum. In several cases following the non-direct lines has filled in gaps in the direct lines.

[Sloe Gin]

My thoughts are that it gets a bit ridiculous.   Even going back 7 generations (parents counting as one) to the 5xG grandparents, we share less than 1% of our genes with them.   And with the wider family it gets even less.

As long as we find the people and their lives interesting, why should it matter?

I still think it's name collecting, even with that many wills and documents.
It's a hobby turned into an obsession and a compulsion.  
Time to do an OU course or something similar by then I think.

You could say it's another angle to studying history.  I know I've learnt a great deal more about all sorts of things by delving into the family tree.  I think your condemnation of it as "obsession and compulsion" is a bit harsh.

[Silvilocks]

It's not FH as we all understand and practise it.  It's a different thing alltogether.  Best left alone, I'd reckon
charlotte

'All understand and practise it" is a bit of a sweeping statement isn't it? Why should everyone have the same understanding of what family history is? One cousin of mine is only interested in researching descendants of his great-great grandparents, and finding as much out about each individual as possible. I'm not much interested in anyone born after WW2, so we have a totally different approach, and yours may be different again. It doesn't make any of us wrong. When did an instruction manual get issued for a hobby 

[eadaoin]

I've never counted my names  - I don't use Family History software  ...
 must do it someday.
My guess is 500-1000 and I don't expect to get any more, really

but I also have almost a one-name study on the Breslins (they were so hard to sort out - I just acquired everything I could on any Breslin living in the east of Ireland)

eadaoin

[teaurn]

I have over a thousand names in my tree with another possible 300 that are yet to be checked but I have only been at this for just over a year.   

If someone has been working on their tree for a number of years I could see how they can get very large especially if you follow down from your decendents for all their ancestors.

Admittedly some of the family links would be very tenuous but it is still family regardless of how small a link it is.

[LoneyBones]

Well I have no doubts...I love collecting people. The history bit comes when I try and find out as much as I can about them, their lives and what was happening around them.
I can't imagine just having a bunch of names. I have a whaling captain...or two....so of course I had to find out all about whaling in the early 1800'. It's fascinating. I have wives and children aboard whaling ships, a couple of births on whaling ships and several deaths. I even have one who was involved in the invasion of, and theft of, whales from a Japanese whaling village. Now there's a change about.    It's all history and some of my ancestors were in amongst it.
I admit it, I'm obsessed.....  

[charlotteCH]

LB, Just amassing a bunch of names has no appeal to me either.  AS you say, finding out about the individuals and theu lives is fascinating and one learns so much about how things were.
Also the puzzle about how to cross reference the info to esatblish it's accuracy is part of the fascination... a dnit keeps the grey cells active

charlotte