Unless someone knows different

[gedb2b]

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.

[Stanwix England]

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.

[AngelaR]

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.....

[KGarrad]

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!!

Over 55,000 people is just plain silly!

[joboy]

I am with Ilona here ......... having been doing it since 1972 or thereabouts and because my parents were 1st cousins  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.
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

[Rishile]

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

[LizzieW]

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.

[smiler007]

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.

[Iain...]

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.