Massive Tree

[clairec666]

Using Warncoot’s classification of research (30 minutes per person) as a base and expanding it thus (30 minutes a person, 3 hours a day, 200 days a year) I should now have around 18,600 people on my tree.

"Warncoot's classification"... the "Newton's first law of motion" of the genealogy world

I have to admit, the majority of people on my tree have not had the luxury of 30 minutes research. My direct ancestor's, however, are being treated to the full works - visits to their graves and photos of the houses they lived in.

We're benefitting from researching in the "age of the internet", which (to me anyway) means we're able to find information quickly while still being accurate... I won't say how many people are on my tree, but I haven't found them through leaf-clicking on Ancestry, they've been researched properly, with the benefit of transcribed indexes and not having to leave the comfort of my own home!

[majm]

One daren't even laugh any more.    (Samuel BECKETT)

    

Once when I was a volunteer committee member, taking my turn at being the email checker upperer (Research Officer) I received an email request that said "Great Grandfather died, then Great Grandmother married Great Grandfather in 1808 and they had my Mum in 1942.   They died in Austria, and are buried with my Mum's Golden Retriever.  What is the name of the cemetery?

 

I wrote back and said "Could you please provide their names, including Maiden surname. I have CDs for quite a number of cemeteries in NSW, Australia, I have none for Austria."   

I got a reply. 

It was the Kennel Club pedigree for the Golden Retriever.   

I replied again, and asked again, this time specifically asking for the full names for each of the enquirer's Great Grandfathers and Great Grandmothers, and Grandparents. 

The reply came back

"If you don't know that, then why bother offering to help".
   
I forwarded the email to our then president and asked him to decide how to respond.   I remember him saying "BMD"  Bloo.y Minded Dingbats. 


Cheers JM.    (I am in NSW, Australia, many generations, first migrant arrived in 1790s, most recent in mid 1800's)

[mike175]

I suppose we should allow for the fact that many of us probably add names to our tree on a speculative basis, to be confirmed or possibly deleted at a later date. When I do this in RootsMagic I add a note to the individual's entry as a personal reminder, but if I had my tree online it might appear that I had just added unsourced names to bulk up the tree 

Mike (in charitable mood) 

[pharmaT]

I suppose we should allow for the fact that many of us probably add names to our tree on a speculative basis, to be confirmed or possibly deleted at a later date. When I do this in RootsMagic I add a note to the individual's entry as a personal reminder, but if I had my tree online it might appear that I had just added unsourced names to bulk up the tree 

Mike (in charitable mood) 

I'm also trying to be charitable. I've started looking at the siblings of my direct line. I start by looking at the censuses and enter for example: if John and Mary have a daughter living with them aged 1 in 1881 I'll add a Mary  as a daughter born abt 1880. Add a note saying according to 1881 census. Finding Mary's actual birth to the bottom of my to do list.  I never get through all my list so Mary could sit on my tree like that for a while before I get to finding her birth. Once I've confirmed her birth finding her death goes on the bottom of my list and so on.

Also being charitable I have been known to research properly then when typing up change birth date to death date or transpose digits eg 1787 instead of 1877 , being ditzy I sometimes only realise what I have done months later when I go back to that section of the family months layer (see above) that I realise what I have done.

[Beeonthebay]

A lot of the Public Trees on Ancestry are good for entertainment value if nothing else.

You're not kidding!!  I just came across my direct ancestor on a very creative tree!!  Apparently she was married 6 times and had 17 sons and 11 daughters and died at the age of 62, no doubt from exhaustion!!  She was born in Cheshire (correct) and criss crossed various counties marrying the next husband and having more children at each point.  She is also shown on the fact sources on this particular tree as appearing in 3 censuses for 1841, 1 for 1851, 3 for 1861, 2 for 1871 and 1 each for 1881, 1891 and 1901, she is also linked to 11 other Ancestry trees. 

I have her as marrying twice (with both marriage certificates) and with 3 children in total. 

[clairec666]

I research in a similar way to you, pharmaT. I add people to my tree with very hazy details, then clarify things later, adding "proof" along the way. I'll also add "maybes" to my tree, for example, people with rare names that I think might be related.

But I don't make my tree public, so I'm not leading anyone astray with my suppositions....

[clayton bradley]

I got in touch with a lady on Ancestry to tell her she had the wrong William Bradley in her tree. The one in my tree died as a child and the censuses of her ancestor as an adult clearly showed it was the other William anyway, father's occupation, place of birth. She got really cross with me and denied these people were on her tree. I cut and pasted the evidence but she still denied it. So I put a direct comment on the tree and Ancestry alerted her. Then she said "who put these people on her tree". I gave up. cb

[Beeonthebay]

I got in touch with a lady on Ancestry to tell her she had the wrong William Bradley in her tree. The one in my tree died as a child and the censuses of her ancestor as an adult clearly showed it was the other William anyway, father's occupation, place of birth. She got really cross with me and denied these people were on her tree. I cut and pasted the evidence but she still denied it. So I put a direct comment on the tree and Ancestry alerted her. Then she said "who put these people on her tree". I gave up. cb

To be fair, it's very, very easy to add another's stuff to your tree.  Too easy I think.

Just the other day a photo came up in the hints so I clicked on it to look at it properly and it instantly attached itself to my tree!!  I immediately took it off as I wasn't too sure if it was the right person and I like to ask tree owners anyway if I copy something of theirs, though to be honest I think I've only ever asked one lady who had some death certificates of interest.

My tree is now private after somebody took all my personal photos and then others have shared them and they are all over Ancestry.  Now you could say that as these "takers" are descendant's then they have as much right to the photos given to me by my mother as I do, but I consider it's "not on" to just take without permission, but maybe I'm too old school............

[clairec666]

My tree is now private after somebody took all my personal photos and then others have shared them and they are all over Ancestry.  Now you could say that as these "takers" are descendant's then they have as much right to the photos given to me by my mother as I do, but I consider it's "not on" to just take without permission, but maybe I'm too old school............

You're not "too old school".... I think the same. It's OK (in my opinion) to use other people's trees to help you research, i.e. find the original sources for yourself. But copying photos that someone owns or certificates they have paid for themselves is not on... unless you ask their permission first, of course.