General Chat

What is the general view on the optimum size of someone's family tree posted on GR? I received a hot match report from GR and made contact with the person in question. However, although I have been allowed access to their tree, there are nearly 49,000 names listed on the tree and it is therefore impossible to view any of the ancestors named. What's more, the person who posted the tree isn't able to work out the connection either and admits that it is due to the size of their tree!

What's the point?

I have replied to your thread with the same heading on the Tips Board. It might be more helpful not to use this one, and keep the disussion going on 'Tips'.

Hi , when I view large tree I enter the person I'm looking for in the white ( where tree owner's name is , or if tree owner hidden box top and then whichever name id there )
Also the date and then click on this tree .
Should take you to the person you are interested in .Then you can click on full tree ,descendants etc
Hope that helps ...apologies if already know all that .
Catherine

Not every member reads Tips page though, so Pamela has every right to post here on General...

there have been terrible rows about multi posting.
See guidelines for message board use
Don't submit the same – or similar – material more than once.

I agree SatNav but the poster is only requesting info.about sizes of trees.....not expecting members to take up valuable time doing look ups!

I repeat...all members do not read the Tips page

Pamela,

If someone has 49,000 entries in their tree, but can no longer understand their tree, or how they are connected ,or not, to any possible Hot Match then I too cannot see the point.

May I just add this - having been a member of GR for many years, I have been reluctant to ask a question, or for any help on the boards, for fear of being pounced on, and taken to task, by the "Board Police" for being in contravention of the rules.

As pointed out by others, not everyone reads Tips. I think a little more tolerance may encourage some members to post more often.

Tec.

Thanks Catherine,yes I did try your suggestion but it didn't work as there were too many descendants. I sent a message to the owner of the tree who then informed me that this wouldn't work due to the large number of names!! Some people seem to think there is kudos in having a vast number of names. As we are all supposedly descended from Adam and Eve, they still have a long way to go, even with 48,000+ names listed!

I posted some stats from my own contact's trees on the other thread. I have access to 3 GR trees with over 40,000 names, so it isn't unique. I also have over 100 contacts with more than 10,000 names.

If you use a program such as FTM, then it will tell you instantly how you are related to any other name in your tree at the top of the screen. Or alternatively use its relationship calculator to get the relationship between any two names you select. It even shows all the people linking the two together.

When I first reseached my tree,thirty odd years ago,it han 79 names on it and that was huge.Now you can put that many on a tree in an evening.

I still think of the first one as my real family tree and when I lost the one I had on the computer it didn't matter much.I think making a tree of 40,000 odd must be a bit like playing a computer game.

I do not believe in number crunching and after 20 years research have about 5 separate trees, the largest being 1000 names. I do not have a one-name study but where a girl marries 'out', I will take about 2/3 generations from her and where a girl marries 'in' I take her parents names and that is it. I concentrate on putting flesh on bones and get to know them well! OH tree is back to 1624 and has been stuck at that for about 14 years - all thanks to Cromwell! My manx trees are much much further back. I only came on internet about 5 years ago so my research has mainly been hard slog in Research Offices.

I have found this thread very interesting. On GR I have about 1500 people but on An....ry I have many more and this evening I was thinking to myself what is the best way to get out of a large tree. Is better just to delete the whole lot and start again or work through all those who are related to one or two people who have married into my family and then just delete the rest?
Also I was wondering is it necessary to buy certs for each person, must say I would not be able to afford to do so.

Chris of Wessex I like your idea but do you do the same when a male joins the family through marriage or when a male marries out of the family?

I look forward to peoples views ideas and suggestions just so long as they don't all think I am mad asking .such a question, I do not live in the UK although I have been working here so I do rely a lot from people on here helping me with my research.

Bye for now

I have never yet bought a certificate.Baptismal and burial dates are adequate for my needs.

I have recently bought a few wills as these contain some very interesting detail and might even invest in a couple of death certificates now for the detail they contain.

Rather than buy certificates that don't contain information that may lead to anything further I would rather wait to spend my money until I have something that I can build upon.

I tend to only buy certificates for the direct lines. Only occasionally do I buy one for a sibling ... and then usually because I'm stuck on the direct line!

That helps keeps the cost down a bit.

Sharron - how do you work out the mum's maiden name if you don't buy the birth cert? (I have seen some parish baptism records where the vicar added the mother's maiden name and the town where the parents married but that is a bit of a rarity!)

Jill

I can usually work it out through the marriages and census returns.

I work on assumption until I can find something to verify it by. If three or so pieces of information come together then I assume it is fairly safe to accept that this is probably right.

Hmmm. Not sure I'd feel totally confident about that approach. On mum's side it would probably work as the surname is fairly unusual and the wives' surnames for several generations were also fairly unusual but on my dad's side it would be a nightmare as the surname is relatively common.

Jill

Spanish Eyes, well a male has to marry out of family but he keeps his name so all his descendents are part of tree!

In other words to be clearer, I keep all descendents bearing the name of the tree. Any other male surnames coming in, I only take note of their parents and 2-3 generations of descendents - is that better? With female surnames coming in, I take their parents as their descendents are going to bear the name of the tree.

I fnd it gives me info and continuity without being bogged down by a lot of far-flung relatives who really have little or no bearing on the tree.

As to certificates, 90% of my work was done in Record Offices andf so I photocopied there, baptisms, weddings and burials. It is only in the past 4-5 years or so I have purchased certs because I needed info in order to move on and that has always been in my main tree, not the branches. To horror of dau one year I had on my Christmas list some death certs! I got them - but not from her. My argument being it was my hobby whereas OH had golf and no one had bother buying him golf things!

My approach has worked for me. Maybe I don't afford it as much importance as many do but I do it for fun and if it takes me twenty years to verify an individual it doesn't matter.

My mediaeval stuff is approached in a much more disciplined way but family history is personal interest and nobody has ever produced a learned article to consult about my mob,not even a zoologist.

I look on genealogy as a way to relax that does not leave you with a hangover and can't get you arrested.

Sharon - it is supposed to be relaxing - but there are times when it seems to be weeks of frustation!!!!! It is satisfying though

There are times at the end of yet another few hours looking for the marriage of George Simmons (b1842) that I NEED the largest G&T on the planet! So not sure about the relaxing!! LOL

Jill