snip... Equally, the situation mentioned by Guy can have its dangers:
I share with B, B shares with C, C shares with D until eventually someone shares with me.
Sometimes, when you track back through the route a piece of information has taken, you find that you were actually the source of it in the first place. So rather than being a confirmation of your own research, it's a circular argument that proves nothing. As always, care is needed.
But interesting though this is, I'm not sure how helpful it is to Rodc, and I wonder if his/her silence over the past couple of days might be because we've drifted away from the original query.
Arthur
That was not the situation I was thinking about, by sharing I do not necessarily mean sharing a lineage or even a fact like a baptism date or a death date (though it could do), but things as wide as where to find specific manorial records or inquests post mortem to enable one to find records.
Or someone may share a copy of a will, a photo of a tombstone or even an early map of a village, etc.
For instance someone recently shared with me some information that the parents of my second cousin once removed built a church in Twickenham. I had known all my life they had built a church in Shirley as I inherited a silver trowel used to lay the memorial stone of Shirley Baptist Memorial Church but I never imagined they may have built another.
Once I knew about the Twickenham church the reason was apparent, the daughter was living in Twickenham when she died so it was an appropriate place to have a memorial to her.
Each researcher has to draw his or her conclusions from the available information rather than copy another’s tree, sharing may help that conclusion.
Cheers
Guy
