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

[clairec666]

Just wondering how people record all the "possible" relatives in their tree - particularly which software do you use (I haven't found anything satisfactory yet).

For example, if you've found a possible baptism for your ancestor but you're not 100% sure, do you add their parents and siblings to your tree? And what about all the nieces/nephews/grandchildren who appear on the censuses but you haven't found the connection yet?

I think we'll all agree that Ancestry and Findmypast trees aren't very good at storing your "maybes" which results in lots of wrong information being copied! So if you choose to have a public tree, how do you deal with this?

Cheers all

[StevieSteve]

I treat my Ancestry tree as a workbook so add my current best guess to the tree and research it as though it were fact. The hint system, though much maligned, is really helpful for this type of thing. I'm also hoping that someone will come along and say "Hey, you've got that wrong, it's this" but no luck so far.

Yes, my doodlings could be copied as fact, but that doesn't concern me.

I have a purer tree in offline software at home. It's not brilliant for tentative relationships, but it's where I keep those unknown cousins etc and I set a goal of clearing one of them a month.

[Marmalady]

If i find an event that *could* be my ancestor's, I add it to the Notes section and only add the event to the main listing once it was confirmed

Any possible connections relating to that event would be recorded in a separate tree as "possible xxx" and only added into the main tree once a definite connection was established

[coombs]

Once I have their name and then find a very likely baptism I add a note in the profile with something like "A Susan Riches was baptised in 1694 and after a careful study she seems the likeliest but not yet confirmed".

One friend of mine who is a keen genealogist said that sometimes you just have to make assumptions based on the likeliest. I am not so sure about doing that. But all my tree is open for review if the situation arose for one line.

[familydar]

I don't have an online tree but offline I've used FTM for years.  It allows you to add unrelated individuals so I do that and build up their tree, merging them in if a link is found.  If I don't find the link on the same day as I add them I put a note on the person I think they're linked in with (eg "possible wife Mary Smith").

Jane :-)

[halhawk]

I keep a paper file of notes about unidentified connections, and try to check them out every so often - eg currently one reads '1861 George Edward, grandson - whose son???' and is listed under the grandfather's name - should be fairly easy, only 5 possible dads!  Much easier than the ones headed 'which website did I find .....'?

With possible events I now put a note with the event saying things like 'possible', 'most likely', 'see also...' - sadly some errors I made in the beginning on Ancestry were just copied straight to other trees - these I at least try to notify when I find them.  If anything on my tree now has my note suggesting the event is not definite I figure if it's copied as 100% fact subsequently it's not my problem. After all, if someone copies the event, they can surely read what it actually says in the description box!

[Andrew Tarr]

One friend of mine who is a keen genealogist said that sometimes you just have to make assumptions based on the likeliest. I am not so sure about doing that.

I think this dilemma increases as one works back in time, and also with the non-rarity of surnames.  Dates after 1837 (England) are probably pretty reliable, although ages given in the census can sometimes surprise or confuse.  I am lucky that most of my ancestors had fairly unusual surnames and were mostly from small villages, which helps a lot.  My wife is rather less fortunate.

I think each of us has our own level of doubt, at which point we may add a question-mark or hesitate to add a name to our tree, but pre-registration I nearly always feel open to correction.  Some public trees seem to have very low doubt thresholds, however.

[Jill Eaton]

If I'm unsure of any information on my on-line tree I add it to the notes explaining why I'm uncertain or that I don't have confirmed sources to back up my assumption.

If people chose to use my research but don't add my caveat to their own tree its up to them.

You can always add sources and confirmation at a later date.

[coombs]

One friend of mine who is a keen genealogist said that sometimes you just have to make assumptions based on the likeliest. I am not so sure about doing that.

I think this dilemma increases as one works back in time, and also with the non-rarity of surnames.  Dates after 1837 (England) are probably pretty reliable, although ages given in the census can sometimes surprise or confuse.  I am lucky that most of my ancestors had fairly unusual surnames and were mostly from small villages, which helps a lot.  My wife is rather less fortunate.

I think each of us has our own level of doubt, at which point we may add a question-mark or hesitate to add a name to our tree, but pre-registration I nearly always feel open to correction.  Some public trees seem to have very low doubt thresholds, however.

I often do a very careful study of possible baptisms and try and hone in on what is the likeliest ancestor. That is why wills, land tax, poor law, military and newspaper records on top of parish registers need to be relied on more.

In 1725 my ancestor Susan Riches wed Henry Helsdon and after a careful study of the possible ones and their parents, it seems the 1694 one is the best one, or the 1691 one, and I found out through the will of the grandfather of the 1694 one that she and the 1691 one are first cousins. A bit of a relief actually as they both descend from the same grandparents.