Quick survey - how do you deal with "maybes" in your tree?

[chris_49]

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?

[aghadowey]

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.

[rebeccaclaire86]

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.

[clairec666]

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.

[coombs]

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.

[coombs]

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.

[iluleah]

'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

[mike175]

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.

[andrewalston]

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.