General Chat

I am pleased to have been able to name people in my tree, but through lack of finance and inability to access information, I do not have much information on them. I have found some trends in similar jobs through the generations which I find interesting.

Hi Nina again, re searching other trees', perhaps I could start a new trend.

I always tell folk the best way to view my tree, because, sometimes I lose the will to live, long before I have found any usefull ifo on others .

Does anyone else have problems downloading very large trees. I have on that has 68000 odd to view, and have never been able to see it yet.

Annina, to date I have never experienced that when asking to see peoples trees
Julia in Derbyshire

Hi, Julia, can I add, that when people let you into their tree, thay tell you which twig to follow,especially if their tree is a huge, mighty Oak.

Patricia, I didn't bother reading through all of that lot. I just looked for the section with my family in it, he hadn't got as many as I had,and looked to see how he was related to them. Turned out he was a fourth cousin, to someone a member of my family married into. Wierd, or what.
Julia in Derbyshire

Julia, it'a wonder your computer didn't go off bang with all those names!

Pat

Hello all, thanks for your replies. Just been and chopped up a shrub for OH to take to the tip, so have calmed down abit by now. I don't think it matters how you go about doing your tree, or money you spend, as long as you get what your looking for. Apart from a few certificates, the most I have spend was about £34 on some copy wills. But I do like to get the meat on the bones, as this makes me feel I 'KNOW' the people I am researching.
I have been back to look at the persons tree for the female I was asking about. There she is with several brothers and sisters and a mother and father. None of them have a line from anyone nor to anyone in the tree, so they do not look as if they were related to anyone.
Talking of name collectors, I asked to look at someone's tree and was given permission. When I viewed it, because some of my ancestors were in it, this person had over 48,000 people in it. I just couldn't believe it.
Have a good day everyone, and happy hunting
Julia in Derbyshire

you've done well Joy :-) My tree doesn't go that far back, I wish it did but I stopped where there was any doubt. Some names I have in my tree are very common lol and there seems to be millions of possibilities.

I can never understand name collectors as such where people will just attach a whole persons tree on to their own even though there may be only a few people connected.

Some people are just name collectors
and do no research of their own
i myself have spent 10 years on my tree
and got back to 1512 and my hubby 1640
i am now adding no more names
but concentrating on adding meat to the bones
of the one i already have
which is much more satisfying to me

this doesn't mean i wont help others even the name collectors

Hi Julia,

It depends what you are are researching your family tree or whether you are a genealogist. May be wrong, I think there is a difference. This is my understanding anyway lol:

Those researching their family tree tend to look at details whereas genealogists tend to look at where their name derived from and family connections.

I always made a concerted effort to research all of my tree (all branches) and try and pick up details as I go along where I could. The reasoning behind it being, when I started those researching their family tree tended to be older and I was always worried that they may give up, get too ill or die before I contacted them. It's also easier for people sharing a common ancestor to connect to you.

The plan was then to look more closely at details of individuals that I am interested in which I am doing at the moment. I still haven't got as far back as some people and I think I could get back a bit further if I did more research in the place where they lived (but are too far away to get to).

My feeling is, it is a hobby and as long as people make a concerted effort to link correctly to the right people and enter correct information, I personally have no issue with it. People have different aspirations.

Mo, I'm just as guilty. My excuse is that I don't have a large immediate family.Sister,brother in law,nephew and niece so to me it's a an amazing thrill to look at my tree of which i've 415 names and think I'm part of that.


Pat

Some people have so many who they research thoroughly and others they just branch out with I have several trees Im researching for others sometimes you need to do a little branching in order to isolate an individual you are thoroughly researching

Holds hands up and admits to going mad when I stared my tree.I chased every twig.
But am now going through and have deleted lots,and got details on lots of the others now
Still have a way to go though.
I didnt have the finances to do it at the time,so just used free sites
Maybe the wrong way to do it I know,so very guilty
goes to naughty step

standing well back from screen here lol....

always good to have a rant Julia :) A lot of people do seem to go for quantity of names rather than a real picture of the people themselves. But in fairness it could just be that in this case the person you were interested is on the periphary of the tree. Connected perhaps by marriage so not as 'relevant' to the other person?

good morning anyway :))

Rose x

Yesterday when I got back from shopping I noticed I had a PM, and so I opened it and read "I have opend my tree to you". I looked at the senders name, and it did not mean a thing to me. I had a look at the tree, or most of it, and was none the wiser either. After a while, I replied by PM, asking if I had asked about a particular person in the senders tree. As yet, still no reply.
So, during the course of the afternoon, I finally found that I had indeed asked about a particular person in the senders tree, and had asked him for information about this one person, about FOUR WEEKS ago. No wonder I did not recognise the sender's name.
However, more annoyingly, I had asked about one person. The sender could obviously not tell me anything about the person, so sent the whole tree. Now call me picky if you want, but do people put their tree together and not know anything about the persons therein. I have got my tree back to 1739, and know births, marriages, deaths, places that all these events took place, off springs, occupations,brothers and sisters and their marriages etc and off springs, contents of wills, lands owned, properties owned, addresses etc., I could go on. On the ones from about the 18 hundreds, I have a little more information of each person. I honestly thought that was what a tree was all about, not just a bunch of names.
I just can't get my head round this at all
Rant a little subsided now, thank you
Julia in Derbyshire